The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Executive Committee Business

Presumption of Death Bill

First Stage

Nigel Dodds: I beg to introduce the Presumption of Death Bill [NIA 23/07], which is a Bill to make provision in relation to the presumed deaths of missing persons; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

David McClarty: The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Civil Registration Bill

Second Stage

David McClarty: I remind Members that the debate at Second Stage should be confined to the Bill’s general principles.

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Civil Registration Bill [NIA 20/07] be agreed.
The Bill proposes several amendments to Northern Ireland civil registration legislation, in particular the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. It also introduces new free-standing provisions on civil-registration records and the notification of vital events.
The Bill expands on the existing legislative framework to enable reform and modernisation that will provide a service to suit today’s society’s needs and expectations. The legislation will provide greater choice and more flexibility in registering vital events, including where such events may be registered, improved service delivery via much wider use of information technology, additional types of certificates to meet public demand and greater access to historical civil-registration records to facilitate genealogical enquiry.
Civil registration, which has existed since the 1840s, plays a vital role in securing and protecting basic human rights.
The records provide an individual with a name and identity in society; a facility for marriage; evidence of parentage; and evidence of entitlement to inheritance. The information gathered can also be analysed to provide valuable statistical information for medical and social research — for example, birth and death rates — as well as general information about the health and well-being of people in the community.
The General Register Office (GRO) has been involved in a process of continuous development of the civil registration framework, including legislative reforms such as the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The Civil Registration Bill is now being introduced to deal mainly with reform to the registration of births and deaths. The previous piece of civil legislation to cover births and deaths, the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order, was made in 1976. The Bill introduces new procedures to reflect changes in society, address some issues of existing concern, and maximise the use of technology for the benefit of both the registration service and the customer.
Allied to that, advances in information technology have already allowed the GRO to deliver an improved service to users. Since 1997, the actual registration of vital events has been computerised, allowing the more efficient production of certificates by local offices. The GRO’s own computer system has been overhauled and updated to provide a certificate-production process with direct electronic communication to all local district registrars’ offices. The updated system links the GRO to all 26 district council areas and provides both a secure system for the registration of life events and a reliable mechanism for the exchange of data between the GRO and the 26 district registrars’ offices. The data that are held on a central database in the GRO now give local registration staff access to all Northern Ireland indexes from 1845 and full registration records from 1997.
The effort that has been put into updating and developing significantly the computer system has resulted in a more efficient, outward-facing and easier system for citizens to use. That success has been recognised in the receipt of Charter Mark awards on four occasions since 2000. A trained, committed and competent workforce was also essential and, indeed, the General Register Office has won several Investors in People awards.
The current system thus provides the GRO with the infrastructure that is required for future development that will improve, yet further, the service that is provided to the public. The associated legislative change that is required to achieve that, which comes before the Assembly today, represents the last, but essential part, of the process. The Bill has been subject to detailed consultation during its development, having undergone two full consultation exercises. The Bill does not impose a financial burden on any party, nor does it have an adverse impact on any section 75 groups. There are a variety of detailed measures in the Bill, but rather than addressing each of those separately, I will group them in several areas and refer briefly to each one.
First, there are several proposed service improvements for customers, some of which are worth noting in more detail. One of those will allow the registration of any birth or death at any register office in Northern Ireland. For example, a birth can currently be registered only in the district of the birth or in the district in which the mother lives. Removing that restriction will facilitate a more customer-orientated approach.
Another proposal will allow the General Register Office to introduce regulations — at an appropriate point in the future — that will allow registration using electronic links without an individual having to physically attend a register office. Of course, controls of any such technical solution that may be implemented will comply with Government guidelines and standards on the security and transfer of electronic information. The systems will have industry-standard security features built in. There will also be stringent online validation checks to ensure the validity of the registration and the subsequent integrity of the records. However, I stress that face-to-face registration with a registrar will always remain an option.
A further measure will encourage the inclusion of unmarried fathers on birth certificates. Currently, when a child is born to named parents, the husband’s details are included on the certificate unless he is shown not to be the father of the child. If a couple are unmarried, joint registration is required to ensure mutual consent, particularly as registration of the father’s details confers automatic parental responsibility rights.
To encourage details to be included on the child’s birth entry in the future, it is proposed that fathers — if they so choose — will be able to attend the register office separately. If, however, the father registers the birth of a child before the mother does, the mother’s position will be safeguarded by delaying the finalisation of the registration until she verifies the information provided.
Changes are also being introduced in relation to the correction of registration records and the facility for changing a name or surname. The system for the correction of errors and omissions in registration records is complicated and can often lead to the implementation of complex formal procedures to correct even minor typographical errors or omissions. All amendments are made via an annotation to the entry, and the annotation is shown on any certificate that is produced subsequently.
The proposed changes will allow for a more efficient and less complicated method of amending straightforward errors — such as the incorrect spelling of a child’s name — and will enable the GRO to carry out the amendment by computer. Copies that are produced after the amendment is completed will contain only the correct information. A clean certificate will be provided for the customer, but the GRO will maintain a full audit trail of all amendments to registration entries.
Individuals who wish to change the names on their birth register entry must produce documentary evidence to show that they have used their new name for at least two years. At a time when more comprehensive steps are being put in place to combat fraud, it is difficult to get banks, schools, etc, to register the new name in their records. Under the new proposals, the requirement to produce documentary evidence will be dispensed with and a universal name-change procedure will be put in place from birth onwards. Departments will also be able to check the GRO’s database, which will contain a full audit trail of name and/or surname changes, when the digitisation of GRO records is complete.
Additionally, the legislation includes plans to introduce commemorative certificates for occasions when people want a special certificate to mark a special event, such as a wedding anniversary or a particular birthday.
The legislation will also introduce a second range of proposals which, although important, will not affect many people. It is proposed to extend the period in which a stillbirth can be registered from three months to 12 months, and to enable an unmarried father to register a stillbirth without the mother being present.
A stillbirth is always a sad and traumatic event, and the three-month registration period is, sometimes, not sufficiently long for parents. The inability of the unmarried father to enter his details as the father on the stillbirth register is also a source of distress, particularly if the mother of the stillborn child is ill.
Some individuals are concerned about the inclusion of the cause of death on a death certificate. Such information, which is not required for certain purposes, such as closing a bank account, can create sensitivities for relatives. To address that concern, the legislation will provide for the purchase of an alternative form of death certificate that excludes the cause of death. As I said, such matters may affect only a small number of people, but, in those circumstances, they are important.
A range of efficiency measures will also provide customer service improvements. I have already said that the digitisation of records is being progressed — not least because the GRO is still working with paper records that stretch back to the mid-nineteenth century. Digitisation will allow the GRO to preserve the paper records under proper conditions, and result in a fully computerised system. Legislation is required to facilitate the optimum use of such computerised records, and the Bill provides for that by allowing information from other mainly Government sources to be checked against the GRO database.
As a result, customers will find it easier to engage in a range of transactions with Departments. For instance, someone who wants a passport will no longer be required to go to the GRO for a birth certificate and submit it to the Passport Office for processing. Instead, that person will be able to provide all the necessary details on his or her passport application form to allow the Passport Office to provide information for checking against GRO records, thereby streamlining the process. Such electronic checks against registration information by other Departments will also reduce the number of certificates in circulation and, perhaps, remove them completely in the future.
To assist the public further, the legislation will enable customers to ask the General Register Office to notify certain organisations of an event such as a death or a name change; that will save the customer having to supply individual paper certificates to each organisation. The GRO envisages supplying such information to Departments, banks, building societies, pension companies and so on.
One of the General Register Office’s most valuable resources is its repository of about eight million records dating from 1845, which are a unique genealogical resource. The use of that resource has been encouraged and the service is becoming increasingly popular with family historians and with the general public. At present, only the indexes are available for inspection, and anyone wishing to avail of information from the register must purchase a certified copy of the entry. The legislation will allow certain records to be made available on the internet, albeit with suitable safeguards.
The GRO proposes to restrict internet access to what are termed historic records; in other words, a period must elapse before those records are made available — 100 years for a birth record, 75 years for a marriage record and 50 years for a death record. There will be a search facility for those indexes, but the system will not allow for casual browsing of the register entries; secure firewalls and authentication will be built into the system to prevent misuse. A similar system to that which we are proposing has been operating successfully in Scotland for some time.
To assist genealogical enquiries further, the legislation will provide for the creation of a record of Northern Ireland connections. That will enable individuals who have a connection with Northern Ireland, for example a parent or grandparent born in Northern Ireland, to register life events that occur outside Northern Ireland. Although such registrations will not have any legal standing, they would be a valuable additional resource for family histories.
Similar provisions in Scotland have generated considerable interest. There are plans to launch that system in Scotland at the beginning of 2009, and I trust that we can follow suit. In all those cases the costs will be paid for by users — there will not be an additional demand on the public purse.
The legislation contains technical provisions, including the delegation that the registrar general can give to other GRO staff and some matters of general legislative clarification. Consequential changes will result from the facility to allow registration in any registrar’s office, or for any registrar to be able eventually to issue certificates from local offices that cover all of Northern Ireland.
I trust that I have provided Members with sufficient detail of the principles that underline the legislation and what will be achieved by its introduction. Some of its benefits will be widespread; others — while no less important — will focus on the needs of a small number of people. Together, those changes will allow the General Register Office to make best use of technological advances while ensuring that suitable safeguards are maintained. The legislation will create a more efficient and effective General Register Office service that will reduce the opportunity for fraud.
Finally, the Bill will provide easier access to historic records, which will further facilitate those with an interest in genealogical enquiry and family history. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for explaining the general principles of the Bill and I welcome today’s debate. On 24 October 2007, the Committee for Finance and Personnel received an oral and written briefing from departmental officials on the background to the Bill, including the proposals to reform registration services.
The Committee recognises the vital role that civil registration plays in securing and protecting basic human rights and entitlements. The Committee is aware that a more flexible legislative framework for civil registration is required and that the purpose of the Bill — as outlined by the Minister — is to provide improved service delivery, better access to services and information, as well as introducing new and more responsive services.
Committee members were briefed on a range of issues, including the outcome of the consultations undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) in 2003 and 2006.
As set out by the Minister this morning, the key provisions in the Bill include: the removal of geographic restrictions to provide greater choice and more flexibility in registering vital events; changes to procedures for altering registration records; the introduction of an abbreviated form of death certificate; the provision of commemorative certificates for memorable life-events; the provision of electronic sharing of registration information on births, deaths, marriages, and civil partnerships, with all relevant Departments and nominated organisations; and the provision for greater public access to civil registration records.
Members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel received an update on the progress of the Civil Registration Bill on 28 May. Committee members raised a number of issues with the departmental officials at the briefing session. Those included the potential threat to data security arising from increased public access and the increased risk of the fraudulent use of personal identity information — and I am pleased to note the assurances given by the Minister this morning.
Other issues raised included the security capabilities of the bespoke computer system, given the risk of system hackers etc — and, again, the Minister has provided assurance about that. There are also the potential risks involved in the removal of the need for reproduction or replacement registers to be authenticated by the signature of the Registrar General; some potential problems with the alteration of existing legal records and abbreviating death certificates; the potential resource implications for the registration service’s having to cope with higher volumes of work as a possible result of the reforms; the potential range of subject areas for commemorative certificates; the possible use of electronic signatures to permit remote registration; and the potential for sharing registration data in applications for Irish as well as UK passports.
The Committee recognises that the public will welcome the changes introduced by the Bill. Sharp focus must be given to data security and fraud detection given the current climate of concern around those significant issues. As part of the scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee will carefully consider the various measures and safeguards which will need to be taken to ensure that a robust system is in place to protect the public from the risks of data disclosure and fraud. The Committee will be greatly reassured by the response from the Minister and the Department to the issues that have already been identified. Overall, the Committee was satisfied with the briefing and clarification provided by the Department, and members will continue to engage with DFP officials and other stakeholders on the details of the provisions in the Bill during the Committee Stage. On behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and on behalf of Sinn Féin, I support the motion.

Simon Hamilton: I support the Bill. In this part of the world, civil registration is a 160 year-old service. Therefore, it is an opportune moment in which to recognise the service that the General Register Office provides, and has provided — not just by collecting information about the society in which we live, but by offering protections in respect of names, identities, parentage and inheritance rights as the Minister has outlined in his statement.
The service may be over a century-and-a-half old, but the system is not as archaic as that. It is important that the system is updated on an ongoing basis, and the Bill seeks to do that by reflecting changes in family circumstances or by adapting the system to take account of technological advances. Most importantly, the Bill recognises the need for civil registration to provide an improved service to its customers, the people of Northern Ireland. That can be seen in the greater choice of places in which a birth or death can be registered, and in the prospect of electronic registration, which is extremely user-friendly. An improved service is also reflected in simple, straight-forward aspects of the Bill, such as the commemorative certificates for significant life-events, as well as improved access to the register.
Much mention has been made of genealogy, and that is something that has a wider impact than in Northern Ireland — people from around the world want to trace their roots here.
However, the importance of the Bill extends beyond technological changes and improvements to customer service. The sensible changes that it introduces to highly sensitive situations should be warmly welcomed. I refer to the abbreviated form of the death certificate that omits the cause of death. That is a useful option in some circumstances, such as when people wish to close a bank account. In such circumstances, the details of the death are not required on the certificate, and the ability to purchase an abbreviated death certificate will be appreciated.
Also, as the Minister mentioned, the Bill proposes significant changes to the registration of stillbirths, whereby they can be registered anywhere, and the period of registration is extended from three months to 12 months. Everyone can appreciate and understand the need for an extension in such circumstances. Another important change is that the father is able to register a stillbirth without the mother having to be present. Everyone understands the sensitivities of such a situation and, therefore, why that is a good and useful change.
All will warmly welcome the wider sharing of registration information throughout Departments. Everyone is, at times, frustrated by the inability of Departments or Government agencies to share or swap information that would be useful or facilitate better customer service. The impact on passport applications is particularly welcome, and I hope that that will speed up and transform the service and make customers feel more valued.
Only one area of the legislation gives rise to caution that all Members will share. The Minister touched on the issue, and I echo what the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel said about sensitive information. All information that is held by the General Register Office is sensitive, in some cases extremely so. Robust measures must prevent that sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands through any means.
I welcome the Bill, and I join all Members in looking forward to its passing the further legislative stages.

Roy Beggs: I also generally welcome the Bill that updates the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Much has changed in the world since 1976. People did not even have PCs then, but now, PCs, the Internet and intranet mean that it is now possible to link the registration system in the way that the Bill proposes. In addition, there have been many changes to people’s lifestyles and movement since 1976. People tend to travel further to work and have access to cars. The proposed arrangements mean that people will not necessarily have to take a day off work to register a birth or death; they can go to a register office that is close to their workplace rather than to the office that is closest to where they live.
The Bill proposes greater flexibility in the registration of births and deaths, and I welcome that general improvement in service access for citizens. The Bill mentions the consideration of the registration of deaths by electronic means rather than by attending a register office. I sound a note of caution there, particularly given the increase in electronic and identity theft. At Committee Stage, Members will have to examine carefully how that system will be protected. No Member wishes someone to suffer through others’ inappropriate acquisition of information. I look forward to discussions on the subject at Committee Stage.
The Bill proposes considerably greater access to dated information that will be of great interest to families who wish to trace their genealogy. The proposed limits protect personal information from being released at an inappropriate time: information on births will be released after 100 years; on marriages and civil partnerships, after 75 years, and on deaths, after 50 years.
I welcome the release of that useful information. Its availability may encourage additional tourism, as people are increasingly interested in their family histories. I hope that, after having traced family roots online, people might travel to Northern Ireland and make connections with members of their extended families who live here.
I also welcome the proposals for the abbreviated death certificate, which will ease the difficulties of families at times of tragedy. The Bill allows greater flexibility for those families who have suffered as a result of a stillbirth. That is an important area, and the Bill will allow parents to record information that is important to them and to the family in a flexible manner at such a sensitive time.
I welcome the Bill generally, and look forward to considering it in further detail in Committee.

Declan O'Loan: I also strongly support the general principles of the Bill.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel received a briefing on the Bill from the Registrar General. The Committee’s questions were answered in a way that gave confidence to the members that the measure was sound and would improve this important service. I wish to put on record that, given the importance of this service, the general satisfaction of the public speaks for itself.
The Bill deals with vital events in people’s lives: births, marriages, deaths and civil partnerships. They are important events, and they can be distressing and require sensitivity. The Minister made reference to stillbirths, and all Members have come across cases of sudden or accidental death and suicide. All those matters are dealt with by the General Register Office, and it is important that a system is in place that deals well with such important and sensitive events.
I will make one brief comment on a matter that is, strictly speaking, outside of the Bill and on the general system: in co-operation with the General Register Office, district councils do a good job in providing this service. It is very important that the physical premises that are used for this purpose provide for the proper level of sensitivity. It would be useful for the General Register Office to have regard to that.
The Minister gave reasons why the Bill was necessary to meet the needs of contemporary society. It provides for more choice and flexibility, and that will lead to an improved service and take advantage of modern communication technologies. I support all of that wholeheartedly.
Family relationships and social circumstances have changed greatly, and the Minister referred to the need that can arise for father and mother to register separately. People are not always as fixed in their situations as they have been; it is advantageous for them to be able to register from other places. The ability to alter records retrospectively is also an advantage.
Clearly, the General Register Office has taken account of points that were made and has identified necessary changes. Like other Members, I welcome the abbreviated form of the death certificate, which omits the cause of death. In providing commemorative certificates, the service has listened to the demands of the public and responded. I also welcome — with the caveats expressed by other Members — the electronic sharing of registration information. People have legitimate concerns about the growing accumulation of information held by Government. Data security is one such concern; however, there is also the feeling that Government know too much about the affairs of individuals and that it is too easy to share information.
Those things must be examined very closely in the future. In principle, the sharing of information is a good idea, as it will enable better government and will provide a better service to the public; however, I endorse the remarks made previously in relation to data security.
I repeat, I offer my full support to the principles of the Bill.

Stephen Farry: I support the Bill and endorse its broad principles. At the outset, I pay tribute to the work of the Department, in particular the Registrar General and staff, for their work in preparation of the legislation. The process of preparation was extremely thorough, and we in the Committee for Finance and Personnel were impressed by the detail of the information presented and the breadth of the knowledge of those staff members.
The Bill is a modernisation of the law and reflects the changing circumstances of society. It introduces a greater degree of flexibility, taking into account the changing nature of family units and the move away from the standard, nuclear family. Furthermore, it recognises our present working and living patterns. When registration was introduced in Ireland, over 160 years ago, most people were born, lived and died in a smaller radius. Now our lives take place across a much wider geographical spread, in and beyond Northern Ireland. The Bill provides more flexibility and choice, which should be welcomed.
Also embodied in the Bill is an acknowledgement of the need to handle information in a more sensitive manner, particularly in relation to the tragic circumstances that can surround birth and death. There is a further acknowledgement that information should be provided only on a need-to-know basis, and that unnecessary information is not made known to bodies that do not require access to it.
I welcome, too, the envisaged co-operation among different agencies in the Bill. However, given our particular circumstances, we must look at that co-operation in the context of the all-island dimension in which we operate, and in which many of our residents lead their lives. It is relatively easy for agencies based in Northern Ireland to co-operate, and co-operation currently exists between Northern Ireland and UK-wide agencies such as the Passport Office.
The most obvious need for that co-operation between agencies North and South is in relation to the obtaining of Irish passports —a common occurrence for residents in Northern Ireland. We must decide whether we can enter into protocols with the Irish Government that will dictate how we handle information. That will make the process of applying for an Irish passport easier and more straightforward, not least in relation to the verification of identity.
The main issue that must be discussed as the Bill enters the Committee Stage will be its impact on information security and the avoidance of fraud. That should not, however, detract from the broad welcome that has been afforded to the legislation. More detailed work must be carried out in that area, but, in the broad sweep, the Bill is sound.
It is a sad reality of the world that people seek to commit identity fraud. Added to that, we have the ongoing threat of domestic and international terrorism, and the impersonation of individuals is a tool that is often used to perpetrate such wicked acts.
It is important to avoid a situation that enables false birth certificates to be used as “breeder” documents for other forms of ID. In welcoming the legislation, the Alliance Party looks forward to the Committee Stage, and to the Bill becoming law.

Adrian McQuillan: I welcome the Second Stage of the Civil Registration Bill.
Many people believe that an overhaul of the present system is long overdue, and that is exactly what the Bill is intended to provide. Members of the public and some staff find the existing system cumbersome and will welcome modernisation. The Bill will ensure more flexibility and wider choice of registration. For those who have to deal with business following someone’s death, the planned abbreviated death certificate will be a welcome and practical alternative to the full version.
On a more cheerful note, the provision of a commemorative certificate will serve as an added memento of events in people’s lives.
One welcome change is the greater access afforded to the public that is envisaged under the Bill. That should reduce the hassle and expense of accessing information, and go some way towards meeting the needs of today’s society.
However, will the Minister clarify how registrars will know whether a birth or death that occurs in their area has been registered in another district, and what are the current arrangements for public access to information on registration records?

Peter Weir: I, too, welcome the Bill, not least for the advantages that it confers on Members. There are many in this House who, from time to time, have their parental legitimacy questioned by irate members of the public. We will be in a position — and I do not want to stray into unparliamentary language — to disprove allegations of illegitimacy more efficiently and effectively.
I welcome the flexibility provided by the Bill. Dr Farry said that the pattern of lives in Northern Ireland has changed greatly in the past 160 years. My own grandfather comes to mind; he spent virtually his entire life in Northern Ireland, apart from a day-trip to Castle Kennedy in Scotland, which he sometimes referred to as his “foreign service”. There may be Members sitting on the opposite Benches who would also regard that as foreign service. Indeed, my grandfather never set foot inside the Irish Republic.
There may be much to commend that older, traditional lifestyle, but the changing and more flexible pattern of life must be recognised. Consequently, much of the Bill mirrors what is happening in modern life.
It is rare, but useful, to debate a piece of legislation that is inherently designed to be sensitive towards people’s lives. That is reflected in two proposals. The shortened death certificate, which can be used for official purposes, will avoid unnecessary distress to families, who may not want to carry around a certificate highlighting a cause of death. The Bill’s provision on stillbirths shows sensitivity particularly with regard to unmarried fathers and to the extension of the time period for registration. There can be no greater heartbreak than for a parent to lose a child, particularly as a result of a stillbirth. Many parents take a long time to come to terms with the trauma of a stillbirth. Therefore, I welcome the additional breathing space provided for in the Bill.
The sharing of information between Departments will be beneficial. I agree with Dr Farry that the sharing of that data must be maintained in the widest possible context. The opening of genealogical records will benefit the growing number of people interested in the subject as a family hobby.
As some Members have already mentioned, there could be tie-ins with tourism and the international market, thus maximising the opportunities presented by interest in the roots of people from Northern Ireland.
I believe, as other Members do, that the general provisions of the Bill are to be welcomed. We must ensure that the information that is held is secure and is not susceptible to electronic fraud. Those of us who have seen the film ‘The Day of the Jackal’ will know that one of its premises involves the theft of a birth certificate and the system being used to obtain passports. Although that film was set 40 or 50 years ago and involved a relatively crude device, the current situation with international crime and fraud is such that we must be particularly careful.
One of the areas that we must explore relates to registration being done “in the prescribed manner”, as stated in clause 1 of the Bill. During the consultations, a strong desire was expressed to retain face-to-face registration, and we must ensure that, if we are moving towards a more flexible position, that desire is addressed. The problem of identity fraud has been highlighted in relation to bank cards and a range of other devices and is, unfortunately, on the rise. For example, if, in an attempt to create a false identity, someone with a similar appearance to me, such as Dr Farry, were to try to steal my identity — which has happened on several occasions to both of us in North Down — we would have to ensure that the potential fraudsters — whose intentions, I am sure, are a million miles away from those of Dr Farry — did not succeed in their nefarious activities.
The detailed scrutiny of the Bill in the weeks and months ahead will prove invaluable. Fortunately, we have a couple of months to prepare ourselves for the task ahead. However, overall, the Bill meets modern conditions, applies flexibility, shows sensitivity above all, and is a much-needed modernisation of the registration system. I welcome the thrust of the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: I thank, very sincerely, all the Members who have commented on the Bill during the Second Stage debate, and I welcome all the remarks that have been made and the support that the Bill has received. Some general issues, and several specific points, have been raised, and I am happy to deal with some of those.
During his very supportive remarks, the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee raised the issues of identity fraud and security, which other Members, on all sides, have also raised. Given recent events elsewhere, as well as those that have occurred locally, we must ensure that as much protection as possible is built into the system to prevent hacking, identity fraud and the misuse of data. The operating systems of the General Register Office are internal and do not have a public interface. Nevertheless, as bespoke operating systems, they have industry-standard protection procedures in place that are kept under continuous review.
Some Members discussed the Bill in the context of electronic registration — Mr Beggs and Mr Weir mentioned that, in particular. That will only be introduced when the appropriate safeguards are in place, which will include procedures for authenticating electronic registration, ensuring the transmission of data over a secure network and the subsequent verification of that data using independent sources before registration is confirmed. Other public-facing systems — for example, those facilitating family-history tracing and genealogical enquiry — will consist of static images that cannot be altered.
Associated web-based transaction payment facilities that allow the downloading of such static images will be subject to industry standard protocols.
I am aware of the issues that Members raised and am grateful for their comments on the briefing that was given to Committee members before the introduction of the Bill. I hope that Members are reassured that, as the Bill proceeds through its Committee Stage, the issues that they raised can be explored in detail. The understandable concerns about the holding and storage of data can be addressed.
Several Members, including the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Hamilton, spoke about the improved service for customers that will result from a better sharing of information. For example, applying for a passport will be made easier as people will no longer have to obtain their original birth certificate. The Bill introduces a longer period in which to register stillbirths as well as short-form death certificates. As I said, those measures affect a limited number of people, but the circumstances for those people can be very difficult. It is important to take on board what was said in the consultation, and those amendments to the Bill will be widely welcomed.
Mr O’Loan mentioned the partnership between the civil registration service and district councils, which act as district registration authorities in their respective areas. I support the excellent job that they do and trust that that partnership will go from strength to strength.
The Bill relates to births and deaths. As several Members said, the Bill is the first piece of legislation in that area since 1976. As the system dates back to the 1840s, it is important to update, modernise and make the system as user-friendly as possible. In doing so, we must acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by the General Register Office and the Registrar General and all his staff.
Dr Farry mentioned the authorities in Northern Ireland sharing information with those in the rest of the UK and the Irish Republic. He used the example of applications for Irish passports, but the Bill does not address that, because it is a matter for the passport authorities in the Irish Republic to determine the desirability and feasibility of such an initiative. Significant policy, legislative and technical issues will have to be explored in Northern Ireland and the Republic.
I welcome the remarks from Mr McQuillan, who asked a couple of questions about registrars. In answer to his question about how registrars will know whether a birth or death in their area has been registered in another district, registrars throughout Northern Ireland are networked to the General Register Office’s computer systems, which gives them access to all information about births and deaths that are registered anywhere in Northern Ireland. Therefore, such problems can be dealt with in a straightforward manner. Members of the public who want to buy certificates must provide sufficient information for staff in the General Register Office to identify the record. Alternatively, the public can search the computerised indexes held at the General Register Office and, quoting details from the index, apply for certificates. However, no public access is permitted to the original records.
The Bill addresses important matters, has been widely welcomed by Members and will be welcomed by people throughout Northern Ireland.
It provides the legislative framework for a more flexible and modern registration service that will meet the needs of today’s society.
I look forward to my and my departmental officials’ continued engagement with the Committee and with Members as the Bill proceeds through its various Stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Civil Registration Bill [NIA 20/07] be agreed.

Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill

Second Stage

David McClarty: I remind Members that the debate at Second Stage should be confined to the general principles of the Bill.

Michael McGimpsey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill [NIA 21/07] be agreed.
When I assumed responsibility for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in May 2007, I said that one of the greatest challenges that I faced was how to reform and modernise the health and social care system so that it is truly fit for the twenty-first century.
The organisational structure for health and social care has its roots in the early 1970s, and, over the years, various adaptations have been made to it. In order to address seriously the challenge of improving health and social care for everyone in Northern Ireland, the time has arrived for major surgery.
The health and social care system is changing; it faces ever-increasing demands and expectations. Now, in the year of the sixtieth anniversary of the introduction of the National Health Service, the time is right to set a new course for the future.
I want to see a modern, responsive and forward-looking service with more collaborative working and less bureaucracy. Reducing the number of trusts is a start towards a more streamlined way of working. However, we must go further, by redirecting measures to front-line services; eliminating duplication; enhancing accountability; and improving safety and quality. Furthermore, the service must become more patient-centred and client-centred, more focused on prevention and primary care and less focused on institution-based care. That is what the legislation intends to achieve.
Health and social care services are improving, and there is strong evidence to support that statement. For example, people no longer have to wait years for an operation — waiting times have been reduced to a few months. Furthermore, trolley waits have been all but eliminated. Changes have also been made to how services are delivered, with the focus now on prevention, which means that people often do not end up in hospital, but have access to the services that they need in their local communities.
When I announced my initial proposals to the Assembly on 18 February on the way forward for the reform of health and social care, I stated that a full public consultation would be undertaken. That was because I felt that it was vital that people throughout Northern Ireland had their say about such important reforms. That consultation has been conducted, and the proposals are now before the Assembly. More than 200 responses were received, which clearly demonstrates the high level of interest that people have in the health and social care system.
During the consultation period, my officials and I attended a series of meetings and workshops, which gave us an invaluable opportunity to meet with as many interested parties as possible in order to discuss the proposals in more detail and to hear the views of a wide range of stakeholders.
The provisions in the Bill reflect the issues and points raised during that consultation. It will allow people to have more of a say about their treatment and care, and it will enable us to deliver the services that people expect and deserve. The Bill will also provide for improved accountability for performance; it will enable us to make the best possible use of limited resources; it will ensure the achievement of agreed targets in areas such as waiting times, and it will improve the quality of services that patients experience on a daily basis. Furthermore, it will help to create more focused commissioning that is strongly rooted in local communities, which will drive towards continuous improvement, and it will introduce new care processes that are more responsive to people’s local needs, with less reliance on institution-based care.
It will allow a stronger user voice in the commissioning of services through membership of local commissioning groups, which will help to revitalise consumer representation and a stakeholder network. It paves the way for a more cohesive and co-ordinated approach to health and social care with improved partnership with local government and other key stakeholders in the planning and delivery of health and social care.
The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill is a substantial piece of legislation that will create the structure that will deliver true reform for the benefit of all the people that we serve.
The key elements of the legislation are as follows. Clause 2 deals with the Department. Its provisions reflect my desire to see a smaller Department with a much sharper focus on its core responsibilities, which include developing legislation and policies to improve the physical and mental health and social well-being of people in Northern Ireland, as well as determining and reviewing policy, standards and targets.
Clause 5 deals with the framework document. In the new system there needs to be total clarity about the roles and functions — at regional and local level — of the new health and social care organisations and the Department. Those arrangements will be specified in the overarching framework document that the legislation provides, which will set out the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of each of the new organisations.
I will also take steps to ensure that the top management structures of the new bodies are lean and avoid unnecessary duplication by sharing resources, expertise and accommodation where appropriate.
Clause 7 relates to the regional health and social care board. The existing four health and social services boards will be replaced by a single regional health and social care board, which, including local commissioning groups, will focus on the commissioning of health and social care, performance management, and improvement and resource management.
That body will have the authority to act on my behalf in leading the drive for significant improvements in efficiency and performance to make services more efficient, accessible and patient- and client-centred.
To ensure co-ordinated commissioning at all levels in the new health and social care system, I have also included in the Bill an obligation on the regional board, when drawing up its commissioning plan, to consult with and have due regard to any advice or information provided by the new regional agency for public health and social well-being.
Clause 9 deals with local commissioning groups. I am on record as saying that effective commissioning is the link between policy and delivery. The creation of local commissioning groups in the regional board will involve local health and social care professionals and local government and lay representatives bringing together their innovation and expertise in identifying and addressing the needs of their communities and planning services in partnership with the voluntary and community sectors and with other key stakeholders.
For the present, I have decided to proceed with the existing degree of coterminosity offered by five local commissioning groups aligned with five trusts and the proposed local offices of the patient and client council. I will, however, give that matter further consideration when the local government boundaries are finalised. In the meantime, I expect a high degree of engagement and partnership among the new health and social care bodies and district councils within the present local government arrangements and in line with agreed transitional arrangements.
Clause 12 deals with the regional agency for public health and social well-being. The litmus test for the success of the health and social care system will be a renewed focus on prevention, improved public health and social well-being and reduced health inequalities. I want to see an enhanced and sustained focus on public health and social well-being, and the creation of a dedicated agency is the best way of achieving that.
The regional agency for public health and social well-being will drive the public-health agenda in a way that is not possible under current arrangements, and it will put public health and social well-being at the core of the health and social care system.
The new agency will not only incorporate the Health Promotion Agency but will undertake a much wider range of functions, including health improvement and development, and health protection. Moreover, it will have a particular responsibility for promoting improved partnership working with local government and other public-sector organisations to bring about real improvement in public health and well-being. The agency will also be responsible for anticipating the new opportunities that community planning offers.
As well as preventing disease, the focus on working upstream to tackle the underlying causes of ill health and health inequalities will help to realise the shared goal of a better and healthier future for all our people by adding years to life and life to years.
The new regional support services organisation (RSSO) that is detailed in clause 14 will incorporate the majority of services that the Central Services Agency currently provides. It will also provide a broader range of support functions for the entire health and social care service. A further RSSO objective will be to ensure that all users are provided with an efficient, effective and economic service that is consistent in its response to changing customer needs and local priorities.
Moreover, I want the RSSO to operate to clearly defined standards, with measurable performance indicators, and to be equitable when dealing with smaller health and social care organisations. The Bill will, therefore, place a duty on the new organisation to put arrangements in place to that end that the Department will approve.
Clause 16 details the patient and client council. It is important that a strong and independent voice be provided to represent the views of patients, clients and carers. I am, therefore, replacing the four existing health and social services councils with a single, independent regional body, the patient and client council, which will have five committees operating in the same geographical areas as the five integrated trusts. I want that new body to build on the work of the health and social services councils by combining a powerful, regional voice with a strong, local focus and by engaging effectively with the patients, clients, carers and communities.
At this juncture, I will make a general point about the constitution of the various new organisations. Members will note that, in each instance, the Bill states that the details of the make-up of each organisation will be provided for through subordinate legislation. I will take a little more time to fine-tune my thinking on that. In any event, providing that level of detail by means of subordinate legislation gives the degree of flexibility that I consider necessary to enable me to amend those constitutions without further recourse to primary legislation. However, I assure Members that the subordinate legislation in question will be subject to full scrutiny by the Assembly.
I plan to begin the process of appointing designate chairpersons to the boards of each of the main organisations as quickly as possible so that, from April 2009, work can begin on establishing them in an orderly fashion. Any such appointments will obviously be subject to confirmation that the Bill has received Royal Assent. In turn, that will allow the newly appointed chairpersons to play their part in selecting chief officers for the new organisations.
Under clause 25, I have decided to transfer the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland’s functions to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). I gave a great deal of thought to that decision, and I am convinced that the regulatory functions for mental health, and the protection of some of the most vulnerable in society, can be undertaken more effectively as part of the multi-sectoral RQIA, which has the resources and infrastructure to ensure that quality improvements can be achieved.
The reform of health and social care is not about changing structures for the sake of doing so. I acknowledge that better outcomes for patients, clients and carers cannot be produced simply by changing the structure of the health and social care system. However, better structures are vital in ensuring continuing improvement not only in health and social care services but in the health and social well-being of the population.
As a result of the new organisational arrangements set out in the Bill, I am convinced that we will be able to deliver more effective, responsive and integrated services that will bring real decision-making to the heart of local communities and deliver a world-class health and social care system for the people of Northern Ireland.

Iris Robinson: On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I welcome the introduction of the Bill. As its title indicates — and as the Minister has explained — the Bill will put in place a new structural framework for the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland. Direct rule proposals to reform and modernise the health and social care system were due to come into operation earlier this year, but the Minister put those proposals on hold when he came into office.
Over the past year, the Committee has been pressing the Minister to reach an early decision on the new structures. I am aware that the delay in setting out the proposals has been the cause of much uncertainty and concern, particularly among staff who may be affected by the changes. That is particularly the case for those working for the health and social services boards, who have been aware for some time that those boards will cease to exist in their present form, but with no indication of what will replace them. The publication of definitive proposals is, therefore, welcome.
At the beginning of March when the proposals were first published for consultation, the Minister told the Committee that his target date for the introduction of the new structures was 1 April 2009. He described that as a tight, but achievable, target. I believe that it will be an extremely tight timetable, and I am conscious that a lot of work must take place in the meantime to ensure that that happens.
The Committee is grateful to the Minister and his officials for briefing Committee members on 6 March about the proposals when they were first published, and for coming to the Committee on 29 May to brief it on the outcome of the consultation exercise.
The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will certainly be the most substantial shake-up of existing health and social care arrangements for many years, and it will result in new structures that are likely to be with us for some time. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and it is important that we get those structures right.
Following today’s debate, the Bill will come to the Committee for detailed scrutiny. In preparation for that scrutiny, the Committee has taken evidence over recent weeks from several organisations that will be directly affected by the provisions; for example, we heard the views of the Health Promotion Agency and the Institute of Public Health on the proposals for a new public health agency. We also heard the views of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association on the overall proposals, particularly the key role that local government can play in delivering services.
Later this week, the Committee will hear from the Mental Health Commission — one of the bodies due to be dissolved under the proposals and whose functions will transfer to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. We will also be inviting any interested organisations and individuals to write to the Committee over the next two months with their views on the provisions in the Bill.
As the Minister has explained, the Bill will bring about several new organisations, including the establishment of a single regional health and social care board to replace the existing four health and social services boards. The new regional board will have a vital role in commissioning, resource management and performance management, and it will be required to set up several local commissioning groups, although the exact number is not set out in the legislation. The Committee is well aware that there are concerns about the number and make-up of those local commissioning groups and will wish to examine the proposals in detail. The Committee will also be keen to examine how the new board will affect functions currently carried out by the Department and how that might affect the size of the Department.
The establishment of a regional agency for public health and social well-being is an important development; it will replace and build on the role of the Health Promotion Agency but will have wider responsibility for health protection and health improvement.
The Health Promotion Agency told the Committee that it views the restructuring proposals as a major opportunity for change. The agency also stressed that health improvement or health promotion tends to lose out when decisions are made on pressures on hospital or acute services. That cannot be allowed to continue. The new agency will provide an opportunity to bring together different aspects of public health and will give public health a much stronger voice. As the Institute of Public Health pointed out to the Committee, there need to be strong links between the new board and the new public health agency. The Committee will want to examine how those links will operate in practice.
Stronger links will also need to be developed between the new health and social care structures and local government. That will take place, as the Minister has stressed, through the greater involvement of local government representatives on the new bodies. Local government must also be involved in the delivery of services; and the good working relationships that already exist between local communities and local authorities need to be developed and built upon to tackle issues such as health inequalities.
Another issue that I wish to mention is the establishment of the new patient and client council, which will replace the health and social services councils; its aim is to provide a stronger voice for patients, clients and carers. The Minister stressed that he wants to see health and social care services become more patient- and client-centred. The Committee will wish to hear views from individuals and organisations on whether the new structures can deliver on that aim.
Finally, as set out in the Budget, the Minister is required to make significant efficiency savings over the next three years, and the Committee will be keen to examine the implications of the proposed changes from that perspective. The question is whether the new structures will result in less bureaucracy and the more efficient use of resources. A major part of the reorganisation of health and social care was implemented last year, with the reduction in the number of trusts. However, the Committee will want to study the proposals of the Bill in detail. We look forward to hearing the views of interested organisations. I support the general provisions of the Bill.

Claire McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister and his statement; I do not have it before me, but I was listening carefully. I apologise for the absence of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee; she cannot be here but sends her apologies.
My party welcomes the general principles of the Bill. The Chairperson referred to the uncertainty that existed when the details of the proposed new structures were not available, as there were some delays. However, things are moving forward and the Bill has reached its Second Stage, and its provisions will be scrutinised at Committee Stage.
I welcome the proposed patient and client council, particularly given some recent debates in the Chamber. The Minister said throughout his speech that the Bill is aimed at improving healthcare and the management of healthcare, as well as improving what happens to the patient, the client and the carer. I hope that the patient and client council will be an appropriate mechanism for dealing with the issues that need to be addressed.
In his speech, the Minister mentioned various organisations. It is possible that some of the documentation that the Committee received prior to the debate contained gaps in information on how all of those organisations would work together and individually. As I said earlier, that issue must be examined when the Bill reaches its Committee Stage.
I also welcome the commissioning groups’ potential for local delivery. I come from west Tyrone where, clearly, there have been long-standing health inequalities. I do not want to go into that discussion in the debate; however, it is important that I flag it up.
Although I welcome the Bill’s general principles, they must undergo scrutiny by the Committee. Go raibh maith agat.

John McCallister: I am delighted that the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill has reached its Second Stage in the House. I congratulate the Minister for that significant achievement.
The sixtieth anniversary of the NHS has made everyone aware of the changes that it has undergone during its lifetime. It is right and proper that that process continues. Today, the challenges that face health and social care services are different to what they were even 20 years ago. The Bill will equip the Health Service with the necessary structures to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century. Those include the need for a more patient- and community-based Health Service that must be increasingly focused on preventative action, as well as on excellent care. I am delighted that the Bill caters for those challenges and that public healthcare is at the core of the Minister’s proposals.
I am extremely pleased with the way that the Minister has handled the complex Bill. By reviewing the direct-rule proposals, he has guaranteed the outcome that is best suited to Northern Ireland. Mrs Robinson and Mrs McGill mentioned uncertainty. It is vital that the direct rule proposals were tailored to suit Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind that devolution has been restored for almost 14 months only, to get such a result so quickly is a remarkable achievement by the Minister. I am also particularly pleased that the Minister’s main proposals are maintained in the Bill, which provides the correct amount of rationalisation, while maintaining local accountability, patient representation and access.
I welcome the single regional health and social care board that will focus on commissioning resource management and performance management. The improvements in delivery that the board will bring about must not be underestimated. A regional agency for public health and social well-being will have much wider responsibility for health protection and improvement, and provision to deal with existing health inequalities. The Health Service now has an obligation not only to treat people, but to give them the greatest opportunity to improve and to maintain their own health. The regional agency will provide that function. A regional support services organisation will improve efficiency of support functions to the entire Health Service. A single patient and client council, with five local committees that operate in the same locations as existing trusts, will provide a strong voice for patients, clients and carers at existing local level, while introducing necessary central co-ordination and management. The Bill will also create a smaller, leaner and much more effective Department.
I thank the Minister for his personal input and investment in the Bill. He should be commended for meeting personally a wide range of stakeholders, including health and social care organisations and the voluntary and community sector. I understand that those first-hand accounts helped the Minister to make his final decisions.
Although I recognise that detailed scrutiny of the Bill should remain for another time, I ask that the Minister considers the relationship between the regional health and social care board and the regional agency for public health and social well-being. Currently, the Bill requires that the board must consult, and have due regard for, the agency in any decisions.
However, I urge the Minister to examine the benefit of a joint signing-off procedure on major decisions to ensure that close co-operation and a strategic direction for health and social services are maintained. I strongly welcome the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Committee and the Minister on its Committee Stage and further legislative stages.

Carmel Hanna: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the Second Stage of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, and the SDLP supports the general thrust of the proposals. However, there are many new proposals, and only time and the outworkings of the various groups will demonstrate positive improvement.
Although we will have to wait to see some of the benefits, I particularly welcome the Minister’s reference to partnerships, because that is important to the success of the proposals. Formal partnerships and meaningful communication are essential to ensuring that all decisions are best informed, particularly between the new single authority and the regional public health agencies; the representatives of the health professionals, including allied health professionals; the local councils; and the community health organisations such as the health action zones and the healthy living centres. That clear connection between bottom-up policy and delivery in the community is required to tackle health inequalities and to focus on the prevention of illness through early intervention.

Kieran McCarthy: I give a guarded welcome to the Bill. I welcome the reduction of bureaucracy, and I hope and expect that any savings will go to front-line patient care. I oppose any enforced redundancies in the Health Service. Efficiencies can be made, but not at the expense of the loss of human resources, which would perhaps create more risk to patients, particularly to those patients in hospital. There has already been an increase in hospital-acquired infections, which has, in my opinion, been caused by cutting corners. That must be prevented and not repeated in the future.
I want maximum representation from health professionals on local commissioning groups. That must include the dental profession, which had been excluded, and local council representatives. I am not happy with the proposed abolition of the four health councils, because that would give less input from a local perspective, which would be detrimental to the community, especially isolated communities. From day one, this exercise was intended to save millions of pounds. I still have my doubts about whether that will be achieved, but any savings must be seen to go back into hospitals and healthcare provision for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Thomas Buchanan: I also welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. The Bill is of great importance to the structure, provision and delivery of the Health Service in Northern Ireland for years to come. That delivery must be done in a way that is effective, efficient and which puts the patient first.
No one can be in any doubt that, over the past 30 years and especially in more recent years under direct rule, the Health Service has been inefficient, cumbersome, overly bureaucratic and greatly lacking in productivity. Therefore, it is essential that the delivery of reforms of the health system and structures under the watch of Minister McGimpsey, closely scrutinised by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, will result in a professionally led and patient-centred service and, as the Minister said, that it produces a world-class Health Service for our people.
The reconfiguration of the health structures through the review of public administration means that the focus on prevention and community-based care is essential. Following on from the Programme for Government, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the other Departments decided that they must deliver improvement and modernisation. As we all know, the cost of providing health services is rising rapidly, so innovation and cost-effectiveness are essential to improving outcomes and overall performances.
In order to ensure greater practical input into service development, it is important to devolve more responsibility to professionals. That, in conjunction with strong local-level commissioning and the development of local commissioning groups to provide people with the opportunity to influence and improve services in their area, is essential. As we examine structures, there is no doubt that we must establish a more streamlined service in order to improve efficiency and performance.
Although public health is crucial, I am far from convinced that another body — the proposed regional public health agency — represents the best way forward. Some Members said that the public health agency and the new board must establish strong links; however, there is no need for two bodies — they should be amalgamated into a single regional health and social care board. The Minister’s proposal that the chief executive of the public health agency also sit on the regional health and social care board emphasises the fact that the two bodies should be combined, and I ask the Minister to reconsider his position on establishing a public health authority, because that level of bureaucracy is unnecessary.
The Minister is aware that much good work is already being done by Investing for Health partnerships. A separate regional body could, in effect, reduce cross-sector working. Equally, the proposed body for support functions, such as shared finance, recruitment, and information and communication technology could also form part of the regional board, and I urge the Minister to reconsider that matter.
The focus on strategic policy, long-term targets and smaller Departments, combined with a regional board that would be responsible for commissioning, performance management and the five fully integrated trusts cannot help but to strengthen linkages between hospitals and community-based services. However, the Minister should ensure that the services that local commissioning groups commission are coterminous with the relevant council, or cluster of councils, and that the single independent regional patient and client council, as a watchdog with a subregional presence, is also based on local government boundaries.
Members are aware that Derek Wanless’s report, ‘Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View’, confirms that funding alone is far from the answer for the Health Service. Massive year-on-year investment has not solved the problems in Great Britain; productivity is crucial. As Wanless suggested, we must do more with each healthcare pound. In the long term, it is unrealistic to expect high-percentage increases in health budget allocations. The key question is not about how much money is allocated at the top, but, ultimately, what results are achieves at the bottom.
During the past decade, the number of administrators here increased by 36%. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that administration will be much leaner under the new system. Hospital activity and overall productivity here has been proven to be much lower than across the water, and there are significant variations in unit costs in various trust areas. Moreover, hospital throughputs and lengths of stay are less efficient here than in GB. Those factors must be tackled in order to provide a quality service for Northern Ireland patients.
In 2005, the Appleby Report demonstrated that productivity could be improved, and it emphasised the need to eradicate waste. Notably, the report identified the distinct absence of an explicit performance-management system, which is regarded as pivotal to achieving improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. Professor Appleby was critical of the Northern Ireland Health Service, which he said lacked urgency and suffered from “general drift”. Consequently, he identified constant frustration at all levels and a relative lack of improvement in performance.
Appleby argued that it remains to be seen how providers are to be held to account for their performance. He also felt that although partnerships and integration can generate good outcomes for patients and users, there is a distinct danger that structural reform could fail to provide the necessary incentive and sanctions — the “bite”, so to speak — to encourage service providers to seek continually new ways of improving their performance. We must take note of those comments at this time of reform.
The structural reforms are important, but what is more important is how the Health Service conducts its work and how it is managed. Productivity must increase. Performance management is critical, and the successful reduction in waiting times — as a result of an initiative that was introduced under direct rule — shows what can be achieved. Incentives must be introduced, with greater management freedoms and sanctions, where necessary, to discourage complacency in the system. The assumption must be challenged that an organisation should always be entitled to provide services to a specific population purely on the basis of geographical boundaries, regardless of performance or efficiency. The pioneering of projects and incentives should be encouraged — if they are successful and cost-effective, they can be extended to offer a better service in other areas. Staff and management must continually strive to make improvements, and quality and standards must constantly be driven up, with appropriate incentives to enable improvements. The reform of the health system and structures is a challenge for us all, but I look forward to working with the Health Committee and the Minister in bringing those reforms to fruition to create what I hope will be a world-class service for our people.

Roy Beggs: I, too, am pleased that the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill has reached its Second Stage. Reform is needed in our health and social services, and I am confident that the Minister’s proposals will bring about improvements and deliver a Health Service that is fit for the twenty-first century, yet moulded to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.
I am extremely pleased that most of the proposals that the Minister previously outlined have found their way into Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his handling of the Bill and in particular for his personal interest and attendance at consultation meetings. I know that the Minister has been greatly helped by meeting representatives of health and social care organisations and of the voluntary and community sector. That engagement has helped to create a Bill that reflects the needs of patients and professionals alike.
The Bill will create a smaller Department that will be more robust, leaner and easier to administer. That will result in a greater proportion of health funding being available for front-line services and a better Health Service for patients, with reduced funding being absorbed by Health Service bureaucracy. The Bill contains an appropriate mix of rationalisation and local accountability, representation and access.
I welcome the creation of a regional health and social care board that focuses primarily on resource management, performance management and commissioning. That should enable better geographical use of resources — certainly better than was possible under the previous boards system that operated in Northern Ireland.
The regional agency for public health and social well-being will have a much wider responsibility for health protection, health improvement and development to address health inequalities than the Health Promotion Agency had, and I welcome the establishment of that new agency. Prevention and health education is an increasingly crucial part of the Health Service, and I strongly welcome the measures that have been introduced to address health inequalities.
The creation of a single patient and client council must also be welcomed. I have heard criticism of this measure from some quarters, but I ask this question: where are we to achieve efficiencies so that we can direct funds to patients? The proposals will enable five local offices to remain in each of the areas in which the health and social care councils are situated. That will strike a balance between creating more efficient central management and strategies, yet maintain local access and accountability for patients, clients and carers alike.

Kieran McCarthy: How can the Member honestly say that doing away with the four local health and social services councils will help isolated communities? As one who represents a largely rural area, how will I find my way to the headquarters of a large organisation? How will any of my constituents with a health problem find their way there?

Roy Beggs: To be able to speak to a local group does not necessarily mean an improved service. What is important is that areas of genuine concern be taken into consideration, and an efficient Health Service delivered. If improved local services are required, those improvements will be more easily dealt with through having a regional body than through the facade of a local health council. I talked to a member of a local health council who has a degree of concern about their being effective. Rather than give the impression that they can engage strategically and deliver the necessary service improvements, they should be capable of doing so.
Support services are, perhaps, the unsung heroes of the Health Service. I therefore welcome the creation of the regional support services organisation, which will improve support to the front line of health and social care.
The Ulster Unionist Party believes in strong local democratic representation. I declare an interest as a Carrickfergus borough councillor, and I am pleased that local government will be involved in Health Service structures and delivery. Local democratic involvement can improve the delivery of services and functions. It also gives people greater representation in the delivery of their Health Service, and that must be welcomed.
I am looking forward to the Bill’s passage through the Assembly, and I hope that the Health Committee will work with the Minister to make any necessary improvements that may be identified. After all, a Committee’s role is to scrutinise the legislation and to work with the Minister to improve it.
The Bill is one of the first examples of how devolution is working for the people of Northern Ireland. Its proposals will reduce health bureaucracy and provide improved accountability. They should also result in an increased percentage of funding being directed at front-line services and in improved patient care. That must be welcomed.
I congratulate the Minister for his personal involvement in delivering the proposed improved Health Service structures, which are designed to meet our citizens’ needs.

Alex Easton: The Bill’s objectives are clear and well defined, and everyone will welcome the focus on prevention and community-based care. Any changes must be cost-effective and increase productivity, and they must not affect front-line services. We will, therefore, be watching out for that as the Bill progresses.
Times of structural change, such as this period of reform of public administration, provide important opportunities for all involved to review performance and to develop a refined vision in many areas of life in general, and in public organisations in particular.
We must keep at the forefront of our thinking the need to improve and modernise in all areas of Health Service delivery. The Programme for Government asks for that improvement and modernisation across all Departments. Health Service costs are rising rapidly, and, in order to improve outcomes and overall performance, we must emphasise the importance of innovation and cost-effectiveness in every part of the system. Much can be gained from devolving responsibility to professionals in order to ensure greater practical input into service developments.
Nobody knows better the problems facing an organisation than those who work in it daily. They know the problems and are often able to provide solutions quickly from the available resources.
A strong local commissioning role is essential if we are to provide local people with influence over outcomes and give them the opportunity to improve services in their areas. Any increase in efficiency and performance will have to be achieved in the context of leaner and more streamlined services. That will be assisted greatly by the integration process, which will strengthen hospital- and community-based services. In that context, we can drive forward the vision of reducing and eventually eliminating waste and costly duplication.
We are all aware from our experiences in many areas of employment that throwing cash at a problem is a poor way to solve it. In a drive for increased productivity, we must make sound strategic decisions before spending public funds.
The health budget is huge — the largest by far — and a small percentage increase will absorb a large amount of money. Where do we seek improvements? We must acknowledge the increase in the number of administrators in the system. That area will require careful examination. Furthermore, there are large variations in unit costs in different trusts, and we must consider carefully the reason for that and for the reasons behind our performance, which is relatively poor compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Appleby Report of 2005 emphasised the need to eradicate waste and to develop an explicit performance-management system that would secure the required improvement in efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. The report also stressed the need to use incentives in the form of clearly defined rewards or sanctions to encourage the innovation and change process. However, although structural reforms are important and necessary, it is people and their ideas that will drive an increase in productivity in any organisation. The quality of people’s performance, especially management performance, will characterise an organisation that is seeking continuous improvements. The ideas, attitudes, enthusiasm and skills of the people in the system are the critical factors. Although we recognise the dedication of people who provide health services, we must demand more in qualitative terms from every individual and from every part of the system in order to create a culture of continuous improvement. That is the goal towards which everyone in the Assembly is striving.

Tommy Gallagher: I welcome the debate, which follows the Minister’s announcement, and I acknowledge the fact that he has moved on with the very important matter of introducing new structures for our Health Service. Other Members who spoke recognise that there are too many levels of bureaucracy in the Health Service and that the Department must be trimmed down. Indeed, the Minister also referred to a more trimmed-down Department. In that regard, it is important to consider opportunities for the relocation of public-service jobs in the reform of the Health Service structures. It would be a major disappointment if the new structures were put in place at the end of the process but the public found that all the authorities were based in the greater Belfast area and were still far removed from the majority of the population.
I welcome the measures that are being taken to develop the local commissioning groups. Members have referred to their membership, which comprises professionals and elected representatives. They are capable of dealing with more treatments and procedures than is the case at present. If such activity is concentrated more in the local commissioning groups, the burden on our hospital services will, in turn, be reduced.
The establishment of a regional public health agency is a welcome development. The current situation is unsatisfactory as there are too many levels of bureaucracy. Public health is handled by several authorities, including the Department, the trusts and the public health authority. That results in a diluted message about the importance of public health. Just as the local commissioning groups will reduce the referrals and burdens on our hospitals, a good public health agency, through its messages, will act in the same way and have a similar impact.
Although the Minister mentioned consultations between the single health authority and the new public health agency, the latter should have its own executive powers. Public health functions, which are the responsibility of the trusts, should transfer to the new public health agency during the development of the new structures. That is the best way to send out a strong message about public health.
I listened to the views of the Minister and Members about the patient council, and I sympathise with Kieran McCarthy’s comments. The development process must outline clearly the type of local committees that will be established, because such committees are crucial in reflecting local needs and circumstances, which will be overlooked if all authority is vested in a single body. That is particularly relevant to people in the west, if that single body is located in greater Belfast.
New local committees for the patient council must be developed properly. They should have a recognised status, earmarked budgets, administrative staff and a local chief to act as a watchdog for his or her area. If we follow that route, local councils will have some teeth, because, ultimately, they undertake important functions. The Minister has introduced many Health Service initiatives; however, some needs remain unmet and must be reflected by strong, local voices.

Michael McGimpsey: I thank Members for their contributions. The health and social care system is of immense importance to everyone in Northern Ireland. At some time or another, everyone will use those services, and, when they do, they expect them to be available, easily accessible and effective. Members will agree that we need to improve our ability to address the major public-health and social well-being challenges that face Northern Ireland. The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill provides us with a unique opportunity to improve the health and social well-being of people in Northern Ireland and the health and social care services for which we are all responsible. Although much progress has been made, we must redouble our efforts and effect this change in order to prevent and reduce illness and disability, save lives, support the increasing number of people who need our help in the future and maintain our Health Service.
I am grateful to all Members for their comments and their universal welcome, in principle, of the Bill, which will now proceed to Committee Stage. I make no apology for the delay; I understand Members’ concerns, but, at this time last year, I was faced with a giant Health Service authority. That model suited a direct rule Minister but did not reflect the needs of the Assembly, the Executive or a devolved Minister, regardless of who that may be in the future.
One of the stipulations under the Hain model, for example, was that no elected representatives would form part of the system. That was a missed opportunity. Therefore, I have taken the time to get things right. As Iris Robinson said — and as I have said on several occasions — this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild the Health Service and we must get it right. The changes that we make must stand the test of time; however, they should be made in a way that allows the Health Service to evolve. We should not have to break it to fix it.
Mrs Robinson talked about making efficiency savings over three years, but I am not sure whether she was talking about the RPA period or the CSR period. A great deal has been said about over-bureaucracy. Seventeen hundred administrative jobs will be shed in this exercise, producing a saving of £53 million per annum over the period of the CSR, which began this time last year, when the direct rule Administration anticipated having its model in place. In effect, we have lost nothing as far as those efficiencies are concerned.
Claire McGill spoke about delays. It is important to repeat that I make no apology for those delays, which happened because we wanted to arrive at the right model for a devolved Administration rather than for a direct rule Administration. I accept John McCallister’s points about reviewing the direct rule model and about commissioning.
Some Members may have missed an important point, which is that the management and performance of the system is a key element of the construction of the regional health and social care board. Although the board deals with local commissioning, it also deals with the key issues of performance management and improvement. Furthermore, John McCallister made a point about a smaller Department, which is just as important.
I welcome Mr McCallister’s support for a single regional public health agency. It is important to have a new focus on public health. The direct rule model for the public health authority would have abolished the Health Promotion Agency. I felt profoundly that that was a missed opportunity, very much in line with the need to engage local populations on the matter of their health. We had to have a renewed focus on public health in order to tackle health inequalities. That is why there is a proposal for a regional public health agency. It will not exist simply to offer advice or make the right noises. It will have an important part to play. I listened to what John McCallister had to say about the joint sign-off option. He said that the Bill requires the health and social care board to have due regard for the public health agency. That may not be enough, and I will actively consider the joint sign-off option.
I welcome Carmel Hanna’s remarks about health inequalities, about which she has spoken on many occasions. She recognised the important role that the public health agency will play in addressing those inequalities. I anticipate that the agency will have its own budget, which will be substantial, and which will allow it to pursue that agenda.
Kieran McCarthy’s guarded welcome of the Bill centred around the proposed patient and client council. I had a debate about this issue. We have five trusts in place, and four patient and client councils. The direct rule model would have abolished those councils in favour of one. I took the view that we needed one council in each trust area. That meant that there would be five patient and client councils. Questions were asked about how to provide a regional voice, and do what Roy Beggs said had to be done, which was to make it effective. The overwhelming response from the consultations was that there should be one patient and client council with four committees — effectively patient and client councils, each in a local format. Rather than going in the direction that Mr McCarthy thinks I am going, I am going in the opposite direction to provide more local input, which was always my objective. The five bodies will provide an effective local voice in the five trust areas and will mirror and shadow the work of the commissioning groups, but providing effectiveness at a local level.
That is the model. Of course, it is really a matter of how all the practicalities work out. However, the model will provide a much stronger focus on, and will give a strong voice to, local areas.
Tom Buchanan talked about the need for efficiency and effectiveness. He is not convinced about the new agency. The new agency will play a huge role in addressing health inequalities, for example.
Mr Buchanan also talked about the Appleby Report, and he said that investment is not the answer, but that productivity is the key. He ought to take a walk through the Ulster Hospital’s ward block or the Royal Victoria Hospital’s maternity unit. He should look at Craigavon, Altnagelvin or Daisy Hill Hospitals. Those hospitals were all built in the 1950s or early 1960s. They all failed to get the investment that they required, and they now need huge infrastructure investment. There are nine acute hospitals in Northern Ireland, most of which require major work. We cannot run an efficient service in inefficient buildings.
Mr Buchanan is fond of talking about the Appleby Report, but I refer him and the House to the Wanless Report. That report was commissioned by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown when they took office 10 years ago. They asked whether Britain could afford a Health Service that would provide healthcare from the cradle to the grave, as envisaged by Nye Bevin 60 years ago. The Wanless Report said that that was possible, provided that the Health Service had investment, was efficient and engaged the local population in looking after their own health. Those requirements are very much at the core of my proposals.
I constantly argue that the Health Service requires investment. I argued that at the time of the Budget consultations, and I will continue to do so. I make no apology for doing so, either. We must also be efficient. That is why the new board will focus on performance management and improvement and on engaging the local population in dealing with issues such as health inequalities. Engagement with the public will be the driving force behind the new public health agency. This will all produce a much better Health Service.
As Appleby has been mentioned several times, I remind Members that Appleby said, in 2005, that the Health Service in Northern Ireland was around 9% less efficient than that in England, although he later modified and reduced that figure. He also gave an account of the fact that we do not benefit from economies of scale.
I have already indicated the way in which we will go during the RPA period. Although major efficiencies have been found, some under efficiencies have happened since the RPA. Therefore, I must find £700 million in efficiency savings over the next three years — 3% per annum. I look forward to having Tom Buchanan’s support for the proposals that the trusts are working on at the minute.
I am grateful for the remarks of Alex Easton and Tommy Gallagher, particularly Mr Gallagher’s expression of support for the public health agency. My Department will carefully examine the relocation of public-sector jobs. All the structures that we envisage require a strong local presence. Therefore, they cannot be based simply in Belfast.
When Members have the opportunity to reflect on the Bill’s proposals, they will agree that it represents a positive route towards creating a health and social care system that the people of Northern Ireland truly need and deserve.
Once again, I am grateful to everyone who contributed to a very productive debate on an extremely important piece of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill [NIA 21/07] be agreed.

Pensions Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move
That, further to the Legislative Consent Motion passed on 26 February 2008, this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of additional amendments to the Pensions Bill dealing with the Pensions Regulator, persons working on vessels and persons in offshore employment and pre-consolidation modifications to pensions legislation.
Before explaining the purpose and need for the motion, I express gratitude to my Executive colleagues and to the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Social Development for the expeditious manner with which they considered my proposal to bring the motion before the Assembly.
The motion deals with the extension to Northern Ireland of proposed amendments to the Westminster Pensions Bill, which is at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. We have spoken many times about parity and about the requirement to seek to maintain single systems of social security, child support and pensions across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Pensions provide a very good example of the highly integrated nature of the systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most statutory bodies in the field — such as the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman and the Financial Services Authority — operate on a UK-wide basis. Similarly, the pension protection fund, the fraud compensation fund, the financial assistance scheme and the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority were all established on a UK-wide basis. As a result, a considerable amount of the relevant legislation is, by necessity, of UK extent.
As the wording of the motion highlights, this is the second time that the Assembly has debated the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Bill. On 26 February, the Assembly approved the extension to Northern Ireland of a number of provisions of the Bill, such as the setting up of the personal accounts scheme; the extension of the remit of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority; and amendments relating to the financial assistance scheme. This motion is necessary because further amendments are being made to the Westminster Bill. Those amendments deal with the Pensions Regulator, seafarers, offshore workers and pre-consolidated modifications to pensions’ legislation.
The Pensions Regulator was established on a United Kingdom-wide basis under the Pensions Act 2004. The regulator promotes high standards of scheme administration and works to ensure that those involved in running pension schemes have the skills and knowledge that they need. Under the Pensions Bill, the regulator will have powers to ensure that employers comply with their duties, including auto-enrolling employees and paying employer contributions. The Bill will enable the issuing of penalty notices to employers who fail to comply with those requirements.
Current legislation that extends to Northern Ireland allows for certain functions of the regulator to be contracted out, provided that suppliers of services are listed in regulations made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The proposed amendment removes the need to identify specific suppliers of services to the regulator in legislation. That approach ensures that the regulator has the flexibility to identify a best value-for-money approach to delivering compliance. Furthermore, the regulator will be given wider scope to incur expenditure in relation to contracting out.
The second proposed amendment relates to seafarers and off-shore workers. At present, the Pensions Bill could be interpreted to include seafarers of any nationality working on any ship in Great Britain and Northern Ireland waters. Those may include non-UK nationals or non-UK registered ships. Although the broad intention is to extend the reforms to seafarers and off-shore workers in appropriate cases, it is recognised that this is a complex area that raises issues relating to international, maritime and European law. Several of those issues remain to be resolved. The proposed amendment will, therefore, take all seafarers outside the scope of the Bill until those issues can be resolved.
The Bill will confer a power on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make regulations to enable the provisions of the Bill, and any corresponding Northern Ireland legislation, to be applied to seafarers at a later date, but before the introduction of personal accounts in 2012.
Similar provision will be made for off-shore workers, such as those working on the continental shelf, by way of an Order in Council. That is necessary, because provisions in the Bill will be extended beyond the UK’s normal jurisdiction. The intention is to ensure that seafarers and off-shore workers receive equal treatment with land-based workers as far as is possible under international, maritime and European law.
I am anxious to ensure that seafarers and off-shore workers from Northern Ireland benefit from the new pension arrangements in the same way as those in Great Britain. Until the outstanding issues are resolved, it is difficult to say with certainty whether some of the matters to be addressed will be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. It is, therefore, imperative that the regulations extend to Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that there will be no gaps in coverage.
The final proposed amendment relates to the power of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make an Order to amend specified Westminster pensions legislation to facilitate a further consolidation of that legislation. There are strict rules on consolidation, which means that changes that alter the effect of the legislation that is being consolidated or that change policy cannot be made. A pre-consolidation Order will allow for errors in existing legislation to be corrected. Furthermore, it can clarify doubts and remove anomalies in existing legislation prior to its consolidation.
However, that power is limited to amending legislation that was in place when the Pensions Act 2004 was passed. The proposed amendment will update that power to include the Pensions Act 2007 and the current Bill in the list of legislation that can be amended by a pre-consolidation Order.
A considerable amount of the legislation on pensions covers Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, therefore, the powers must also cover that geographical remit. Given that pension matters are transferred under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the approval of the Assembly is required for the proposed amendments and their extension to Northern Ireland.
The Executive considered urgently and endorsed the proposals for the motion at their meeting on 19 June, and the Committee for Social Development considered the proposals and expressed its support for them at its meeting on the same day. I am grateful for the support of Executive colleagues and of the Committee. I trust that Members will agree that it is necessary for the proposed amendments to extend to Northern Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

David Hilditch: I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. As she said, on 19 June, the Committee for Social Development considered correspondence from the Department in which it notified the Committee of the Minister’s intentions to table the legislative consent motion on the Westminster Pensions Bill.
As the Minister said, the motion relates to amendments that were made to the Bill during its passage through Westminster. The Committee has considered the amendments and agreed that they should extend to Northern Ireland. The Committee supports the motion.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. It is apparent from that statement that the legislation in respect of pensions is complex. Mr Hilditch and the Minister have said that the Committee considered the amendments and were in agreement. The issue of seafarers and offshore workers has been explained by the Minister, and anything that protects their rights has to be positive. I endorse the motion.

Mark Durkan: The Minister referred to an earlier legislative consent motion that came before the Assembly. At that time, I submitted an amendment that was not accepted by the Speaker, and I took that to mean that there was a convention of discouraging amendments to legislative consent motions — I can understand why that would be the case. The amendment that I tried to submit highlighted an issue that was addressed during a subsequent debate. However, it is important that that issue be raised again, given that the legislative consent motion deals with amendments that have been agreed or that might be made in respect of the Pensions Bill.
There is an acute anomaly that affects a number of pensioners who belong to a few pension schemes, the most significant of which involves quite a number of people in Northern Ireland. I refer specifically to the Desmond and Sons Ltd pension scheme. With just short of 300 members, pensioners who are members of that scheme are suffering a significant reduction in the pension that they receive. Those pensioners are receiving only around 53% of their pension entitlement, which they have earned, bought and paid for. That is happening because they are caught in a calendar warp with existing schemes.
When Parliament passed the previous pensions legislation, everyone assumed that people who belong to pension schemes would be covered by either the pension protection fund or by the financial assistance scheme. The Desmond and Sons pension scheme and two other smaller schemes in England demonstrate that that is not the case. Insolvency occurred in those cases before 5 April 2005, but the wind-up occurred after that date. Therefore, they are disqualified from benefiting from either the pension protection fund or the financial assistance scheme.
At Westminster, I have been pressing for amendments, and I tried, during the previous debate, to urge the Assembly to ensure that amendments are pursued by the Government to ensure that that anomaly is rectified. I have held a number of meetings and engagements with Ministers responsible for pensions, including the current Minister of State for Pensions Reform, Mike O’Brien, who has been very sympathetic. I have relied on members of the House of Commons Standing Committee to table an amendment, and I have tabled a new clause, all the while receiving assurances from Ministers that the Government will table an appropriate amendment in the Lords.
Last week, an amendment was tabled in the Lords that would have the effect of allowing secondary legislation to deal with some of those anomalies. I would prefer a more upfront and categorical amendment that would directly deal with, and dispose of, the issue. I hope that, throughout the passage of the legislation, the Minister will undertake to use her office and the representative channels of the Executive to ensure that further amendments can be made to the Pensions Bill. Those amendments are necessary to provide more upfront assurances to the workers from Desmond and Sons that they can be accommodated immediately. If those amendments cannot go that far, strong assurances must be given that the secondary legislation that will remedy the problem will follow immediately. We do not want to be left in long pursuit of that secondary legislation.
I welcome the wider comments that the Minister has made about the importance of the Pensions Bill.
Pensions legislation, by its nature, is more complicated than any of us would like, but if we are to provide the cover that people require, it needs to be — and it must apply on a UK-wide basis.
A particular anomaly affects the Desmonds’ pension scheme in Northern Ireland, more so than anywhere else. I hope that the Minister representing the Assembly and the Executive will not be behind the door in pressing the case. These people need to see justice — they are carrying a grave injustice. A legal remedy to the calendar warp would help the financial assistance scheme to be made available, if this corrective legislation is passed. Those pensioners who have experienced a serious reduction in benefits would have their situation made good, and people whose pensions have been deferred would have more comfort and confidence about the future that they face.

Anna Lo: The Alliance Party supports the legislative consent motion. We welcome the amendment to make the office of the Pensions Regulator more flexible and able to contract out some functions to ensure better value for money. If that helps with efficiency savings, it will be better for the public purse.
In the case of seafarers and offshore workers, I appreciate that theirs is a complicated issue, involving other legislation. I realise that there has been an assurance that the case would be looked at before 2012, but I still have some reservations — perhaps the Minister can elaborate on the issue. There will be a gap of some years before the matter of the protection of seafarers and offshore workers is resolved, and they will not be entitled to treatment equal to that offered to land-based workers. What sort of protection will these workers have in the meantime?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I am particularly grateful for the support of the Committee’s Deputy Chairperson, Mr Hilditch, as well as that of other members of the Committee for Social Development, namely Mr Brady and Ms Lo. I will return to the comments made by my colleague Mr Durkan.
It is right that the proposed amendments outlined earlier should extend to Northern Ireland. Seafarers and offshore workers from Northern Ireland should benefit from the new pension rights in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. Equally, it is vital to maintain the current integrated system by agreeing to the amendments to Westminster legislation that already extend to Northern Ireland.
I am conscious of the fact that Mr Durkan raised the issue of the Desmonds’ pension scheme during the first debate on the legislative consent motion on 26 February 2008. I assure him that I have been in consultation with the Minister for Pension Reform in the Department for Work and Pensions about the position of people affected by the Desmonds’ pension scheme. Work is ongoing, but I have been assured that a successful conclusion will be reached in the near future to extend the financial assistance scheme to cover schemes such as that in Desmonds. I am conscious that many of the people involved in the scheme are quite advanced in years and that they need concrete and categorical assurances that this is going to happen. I will be making direct contact with the Minister for Pension Reform. I hope to visit London in the next few weeks to meet various GB Ministers, and that will be one of the issues that I will be discussing.
I agree with my colleague Mark Durkan that people who worked in Desmond and Sons have a right to natural justice, and they should receive a proper and adequate pension. I am happy to re-examine the matter and pursue it to the bitter end.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that were put and addressed all the issues that were raised. I agree with Members that the legislation is technical, complex and difficult to understand. If I omitted to address any particular point, I assure Members that I will respond to them in writing.
I commend the motion to the Assembly, and I thank all Members who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, further to the Legislative Consent Motion passed on 26 February 2008, this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of additional amendments to the Pensions Bill dealing with the Pensions Regulator, persons working on vessels and persons in offshore employment and pre-consolidation modifications to pensions legislation.

Committee Business

Primary-School Funding

Francie Molloy: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes in which to speak.
I remind Members to consider whether they have any relevant interests to declare before speaking in the debate.

Mervyn Storey: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to urgently examine measures and bring forward proposals which would significantly increase funding to primary schools.
I declare an interest, as I sit on the board of governors of Ballymoney Model Primary School and Ballymoney High School.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Education, I wish to highlight some important points in support of the motion. The Committee heard considerable evidence on the underfunding of primary schools. To reflect how seriously the Committee regards the issue, I wrote to every Member of the House on 26 June 2008 and included copies of the most recent evidence to the Committee from the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group (NIPPAG) and the briefing paper from senior officials in the Department of Education.
The full record of all the key evidence to date is available on the Committee’s website. I say “to date” because the matter will not end with today’s debate. I notice that the Minister of Education made a pre-emptive strike when she took time to issue a press release prior to evidence being presented to the House. I use the term “pre-emptive” but, in light of her previous career and the week that we are in, it may be better described as a weak-wristed volley that did not climb halfway up the net.
The Committee has agreed to continue its scrutiny of the issue until, as the motion demands, the Minister introduces proposals to:
“significantly increase funding to primary schools.”
Any attempt to lob the ball into someone else’s court will not do. The Minister has moved from playing singles to partnering her colleague John O’Dowd in a mixed-doubles team — I wonder how good he will be when he comes to the net.
I welcome representatives from NIPPAG to the Assembly today. I, and other Members, had the pleasure of addressing the entire group of 130 principals in the Long Gallery on 11 June 2008. The evidence from NIPPAG and other groups, such as the East Belfast Primary and Nursery Principals’ Group and the North Belfast Principals’ Group, is compelling on several fronts. Information from various sources reflects a significant differential between primary and post-primary funding in Northern Ireland and in how primary funding here compares with other parts of the UK and beyond.
Officials caution that some statistics do not reflect like-with-like comparisons. However, the serious funding differential between primary and post-primary funding is clear, and that is one issue that I want to highlight to Members today. The Department made the following statement that includes its own figures:
“After taking account of all funding factors, a difference, on average, of £1,375 per pupil exists.”
Is that acceptable to the House?
The Department of Education told the Committee:
“In developing and introducing the common funding formula in April 2005, a key focus was to make progress in narrowing the funding differential between primary and post-primary phases.”
The Committee accepts that the formula has been revised and changed regularly to increase the proportion of available resources to primary schools, without having an adverse impact on other phases of education. However, that has produced too little, and, to date, it has had virtually no impact. It is argued that the Minister’s efforts to reduce the differential have resulted in a widening, not a narrowing, of the gap.
In her statement on the distribution of the education budget on 12 February, the Minister provided an increase to the primary age-weighted pupil unit from 1·02 to 1·04 in the 2008-09 budget. That is equivalent to an average of 4% per primary school pupil and amounts to £102. Members who have read the evidence of the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group, which was presented to the Committee on 6 June, will know:
“4% of nothing or very little is not very much”.
That £102 is immediately absorbed by inflationary price rises, such as the cost of cleaners’ pay, heating and other running costs, leaving the staggering amount of £14 per pupil. NIPPAG said that that sum would buy 20 minutes per day of a classroom assistant’s time. Given that there is clearly a need to produce good results from the revised curriculum and improve literacy and numeracy standards, is that the Department’s best effort to deal with primary school underfunding?
As evidenced in the debate on early-years education in June 2007, an abundance of research proves that investment in a child’s early education pays back, some suggest, sevenfold. Sir George Bain’s review points out that substantial international research demonstrates that levels of pupil attainment, particularly at the foundation stages of education, and particularly among low-achieving groups, increase when high pupil teacher ratios decrease. The post-primary sector obviously benefits when the primary sector has the resources to do its job right.
In her press statement, the Minister has pointed out that her budget allocated an additional £32 million, specifically to support primary schools in the delivery of the foundation stage of the revised curriculum over the three-year budget period. Furthermore, over the next three years, the Department has allocated funding of £12 million specifically to help primary school principals who teach. That is particularly welcome.
However, the Committee heard about other funding that is intended to benefit primary schools in such areas as ICT support. That brings me to a fundamental point about the structure of the education budget, which the Committee raised with departmental officials on 6 June. Some £190 million, which is more than 10% of the overall education budget, is being channelled to schools through earmarked initiative funding. The Committee eagerly awaits a paper from the Department on that matter; we understand that there are 57 initiatives, although I have heard that the number being funded in that way may be as high as 70. They are often one-off, short-term initiatives, perhaps cut off before they have any real impact.
Last week, I visited the greater Shankill area of the city. Sadly, and to the shame of the Department of Education, I witnessed children saying farewell to their special-needs teacher because funding for that teacher had come to an end. In an area where one is two and a half times more likely than average to suffer deprivation the only and best thing that the Department of Education could do is to say to a special-needs teacher: thank you very much, your services are no longer required; goodbye, and close the door after you. That is a shame and a disgrace, and it is something that needs to be addressed urgently. How short-term, how short-sighted, how short-changed is our education system?
The Committee has heard much criticism from school principals about initiatives that often involve a complicated and lengthy application process and follow-up bureaucracy. Those initiatives also generate extra administration for the Department and for the education and library boards.
The Committee will continue to scrutinise the matter and will press the Department to mainstream much of the funding. Ideally, some of it should go directly into core funding for primary schools, where school principals and boards of governors would have the flexibility and discretion to prioritise the scarce resources to meet their needs.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mervyn Storey: On a similar theme, the Committee has asked for urgent information about bringing the funding that is outside the common funding formula into the formula and transferring it into core funding for primary schools. The Committee understands that the Department is examining the foundation stage and is making a good start on funding in the area. The Committee will press for urgent action to explore other areas.
The local management of schools steering group is responsible for the continuous review of the formula. The Committee will require assurances that any mainstreaming of funding — or adjustments to the formula — are factored in so as to benefit primary schools directly.
Finally, the Committee plans to closely scrutinise the fundamental review of the formula that is about to begin. We will look at the scope for taking action to address the underfunding of primary schools.
The Committee is looking for immediate, urgent action. The Committee will be pressing the Minister and her officials to be proactive and imaginative in delivering real changes to address the underfunding of primary schools. Long-term solutions — such as recycling savings from the creation of the proposed education and skills authority (ESA) — remain an ideology that has yet to see its fulfilment.

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I welcome the fact that we are having the debate today. The debate is the beginning of a process that will ensure that we, collectively, garner more finances for primary school children, principals and teachers.
I will have to examine the Hansard report and unpick the Chairperson of the Committee for Education’s speech to see where the DUP started and where the Chairperson ended, because it is unfortunate that he used his first opportunity to table a Committee motion to make a political speech.
The underfunding of primary schools is one issue that garners all-party political support, and it is one that the primary school principals have been at pains to ensure does not become a party-political football to be used by one party against another.

Barry McElduff: On a point of order, will the Deputy Speaker rule on the appropriateness of a Committee Chairperson delivering a party-political statement? It is my understanding that when one speaks as the Chairperson of a Committee, one must emphasise the Committee role and not the party-political role.

Francie Molloy: The point has been made. It is up to the Committee to deal with that situation.

John O'Dowd: The motion refers to the need for urgent examination of the funding available to primary schools. The Chairperson alluded to one sector of that funding in the main part of his speech, which is the age-weighted pupil unit. Should the unit be increased? Yes, it should be increased. However, how do we increase it in such a way that ensures the continuation of small rural primary schools in particular? Are we proposing that the only funding source for schools should be based on that method, or does the entire funding formula need to be re-examined?
I believe that the formula needs to be re-examined to ensure that funding going into primary schools suits the needs of individual schools. Under the current system, there is funding support for small, rural primary schools that ensures that they will survive in rural communities.
When comparing figures from here, England, Scotland, Wales or across the border, those figures must be on a like-for-like basis. To ensure that primary schools here receive more funding, requirements must be identified using an evidence-based formula. Furthermore, Members must do more than simply table a motion in the House. We must ensure that the Minister proposes, as quickly as possible, a funding formula that satisfies the needs and demands of the current lobby.
The secondary-school sector is also observing this debate with concern, and wondering whether the extra funding for primary schools is going to come from it. We must consider primary-school funding in terms of the whole education system in order to ensure that whatever formula is arrived at is well-tested and meets the needs of primary schools. In the meantime, if money is available, it should be injected into primary schools.
I listened intently to the earlier debate during which the DUP demanded the more efficient running of the Health Service and the removal of back-room services. I support the primary-school teachers’ demands, and their areas of concern must be noted.
They want more funding to help with administration, and to give them time out of the classroom so that they can run the schools. Therefore, the DUP and others must be careful how they make their demands for an end to administration. It runs counter to the argument made by primary schools. It is also counter to the argument over health, but that is another debate. It is correct for primary-school principals to want more time out of the classroom, because they have become managers as much as teachers. They need time away from the classroom in order to ensure that their schools are run correctly.
The Chairperson of the Committee stated that the failure to move ESA on meant that the savings that it was to generate had not entered the system. ESA has not moved on because the DUP has not let it move on. Therefore, the funding that was to have been available through ESA can be delivered to primary schools.
The Chairperson referred to his visit to a Shankill Road primary school that has lost a special-needs teacher. I, too, regard that as a disgrace. In the past financial year, the education boards handed back £27 million in resources — that would have paid for a lot of special needs teachers in Shankill Road primary schools.
I support the motion.

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: I am almost finished. I support the motion, and I hope that we are at the start of a process that quickly brings more funding to primary schools.

Basil McCrea: Academic selection dominates the debate on education. Those who argue for its removal cite the long tail of educational underachievement. They imply that academic selection is the major cause of such underachievement, and that its removal would end many education problems. That is the stuff of nonsense, propagated by people who see the debate on education as an ideological battle, a cause célèbre, and an opportunity to flex political muscles. As such, it diverts attention away from the real issues.
Underachievement in education does not begin at the age of 11, inequality does not begin at the age of 11, and a sense of failure does not begin at the age of 11. The challenges faced by society emerge at a much earlier age. It falls to primary schools to respond to that challenge. Our primary schools are in the front line of this battle, and they have been asked to take on more responsibilities with little or no resources.
The Department of Education tries to address challenges facing society in the only way it knows how; it launches one initiative after another, with ring-fenced finances and centralised control. I am not attacking the Civil Service for doing what it can to alleviate problems. However, there is a better way forward. Primary-school leaders must be empowered and resourced. They need fewer initiatives and more core funding.
I have had the privilege of talking to many primary-school leaders — at their conference in Cookstown, in the Long Gallery at Stormont, at Committee, in schools and in their groups. They speak more eloquently than I do. Members may have read some interesting statements in the newspapers. In explaining the difficulty of ring-fenced finance, Martin Short, principal of Holy Trinity Primary School in Andersonstown, told me that the Department of Education provided funding for a new laptop computer for each of his teachers, at a cost of £14,000, and foundation money, which was also ring-fenced. At the same time, he employed one classroom assistant for three P2 classes, while having to make two teachers redundant. That is counter-intuitive — it does not make sense.
The Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group has raised the issue of inequality in funding between primary and secondary schools. Government reports indicate that such a disparity is for historical reasons. Those who, during other debates, argue about antiquated, outmoded, 40-year-old education systems might take note of that point and deal with funding inequality.
The Minister accepts the case, as does the Department, but the Department says that more cannot be done without increasing the overall fund. That is not a trivial sum. The estimates of £125 million per annum represent a very significant increase on the budget of £1,000 million. To quote Mr Short again:
“Every political party represented here recognises that primary-school funding is insufficient. Nobody … disagrees with that.”
As Mr Short argued, if we do not do something about it, the status quo will remain. School principals are asking us, their elected representatives, to do something about that.
However, it is not simply a question of funding. Teachers, as Mr Greer said, complain more about a shortage of time than a shortage of money. They struggle desperately and are under enormous pressure, as are all primary-school principals. There has been a massive increase in expectations, yet very little increase in funding. It could be argued, as Mr Jess told the Committee, that we have a potentially very good curriculum, but underfunding means that we cannot deliver it. That leads to one stark conclusion, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
If we are to deal with the legacy of the past, with educational underperformance, with the inability of some of our young people to read and write when they leave school, with the health of our school leaders and with preparing our young people for a future, a step change in funding for primary schools is needed, as is a change of attitude. That cannot be done incrementally — that would take too long and is too little, too late. I sincerely hope that the Minister will introduce radical proposals that enjoy the support of all her Executive colleagues so that the situation in the Province can progress.

Mary Bradley: I talked to all my local schools in preparation for this debate. The effects of the funding inadequacy are shocking, to say the least. The extent of the differential is £1,258 a pupil. That is a vast sum of money for any school to have to make up, but is particularly so for schools situated in an area that ranks highly on the Noble index.
If there were no difference in funding, one primary school in my area would have an additional £484,330. That would have a massive impact on that school, and — oh, boy — what it could achieve with that. The school has 440 pupils, there is 53% uptake of free school meals and approximately 20% of its pupils are on the special educational needs (SEN) register. However, due to the funding imbalance, it now faces several major difficulties.
No additional classroom-assistant support is available for the most vulnerable children in that school. Children with significant learning difficulties are moving from nursery into primary 1 but do not meet current statementing criteria, despite recognition from all the professionals involved that those pupils are in urgent need of significant support. No funding is available for emergency situations. Such funding would support pupils who experience a traumatic and sudden change in circumstances. For example, one child at the school suffered a very serious eye injury, and temporary additional support is clearly needed to enable that child to manage his or her new circumstances. There is no available funding for that, and that child must go through a protracted statementing process.
If primary schools had their fair share of resources, they could deal with such matters immediately. That would be in the interests of the child, the family, the class and the teacher. That particular school must also cope with a temporary SEN support teacher’s being made redundant. It has insufficient funds to provide appropriate SEN support for Key Stage 2 pupils who are operating below the required standards in literacy and numeracy. Unless that problem is dealt with effectively at primary level, those pupils are at significant risk of leaving the education system without good grades in those core subjects.
There are insufficient funds to refurbish schools — some floors and ceilings have not been refurbished for over 20 years because of a funding shortage. Recently, my grandson had a near miss when a ceiling fell, moments after he brought the problem to the attention of his teacher. Thankfully, that school has been rebuilt, but many others have not even been refurbished.
Essential maintenance is barely catered for, despite it being exactly that — essential. Money for such measures must be found. Reduced expenditure on resources and refurbishment means that some schools operate on budgets as ridiculous as £15 a pupil a year to save funds for staffing, so that the maximum individual and group support can be provided where it is required.
None of the examples that I have mentioned is exaggerated. Instead, those examples are a sad indictment of the times that we live in. Where are the better times that we were promised by the DUP and Sinn Féin? When it voted against the Budget, my party knew that there was not enough money to deliver all that was promised. The Minister says that she will deliver a better education system. How? Where is the money to do that? I urge her to be responsible, lead the way and show that she is a member of the Executive who will do what she often says she wants to — put children at the heart of her policies.
Confusion reigns supreme about the 11-plus, so the Minister must not allow the sorry state of affairs in primary-school funding to continue. Children are depending on us to deliver a better way of life for them through education and, as public representatives, the onus is on us to ensure that that happens. A lack of funds means less access to education for all children and, more importantly, for those on the SEN register. How can every school be a good school when they are all under extreme financial pressure?

Trevor Lunn: The Alliance Party supports the motion. However, I assume that the Minister is urgently examining measures to increase funding to primary schools — in fact, I am sure that she does that on an ongoing basis. She must bring forward proposals; however, that will not be as simple as it sounds.
All the major subjects that are under review will contribute to an outcome that may provide funds to alleviate the problems experienced by our primary schools. The sustainable schools initiative, area-based planning and ESA all have the potential to make savings in the education budget.
I note the figures that the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group quote for the deficit in funding between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain, and the differences of opinion about how wide those discrepancies are. Is the difference in funding between secondary and primary education the main issue or, is it the evidence from all sides that, irrespective of what funding is allocated to secondary education, we do not spend enough on primary schools and early-years funding?
Like the other members of the Education Committee, I have sat through presentations from educationalists and departmental officials ad infinitum, been to union conferences and private meetings and visited schools. The most impressive presentations were those from teachers and head teachers at the sharp end of the system, and the message is beyond argument — our primary schools are not given sufficient funds to do the job that we ask of them, and they are run ragged trying to cope.
We do not allow enough money for building maintenance, classroom assistants or special needs. We do not allow sufficient scope for preparation time, and we pile regulations, form filling and excessive bureaucracy upon initiatives. I heard that, this year, there are 70 different initiatives, and the Chairperson said that there are 56 — I will not argue about which is right, because they are both disgraceful. Some of those initiatives involve enormous amounts of time for pitifully small amounts of funds. As Basil McCrea said, we require core funding, not initiatives.
Money should be allocated on the basis of need, not by random formulae. I do not care how scientific the funding formula is, it is not doing its job, and we are failing our teaching professionals, our youngest children and their parents. I cannot think of any aspect of our primary education system that is regarded as satisfactory by those who work in it. The pressure that is being imposed is driving good people out of the teaching profession.
The Alliance Party’s long-term solution will not surprise anyone; the costs of running a segregated system are indefensible. Whether our estimate of £1 billion or the higher figure quoted by Deloitte is accepted, there is an enormous waste of resources, and a lot of that must apply to education.
I have noted a gradual acceptance in recent times of that fact by other parties, and indeed, Members. Even the new Chairman of the Committee for Education has revealed his Alliance credentials by recently acknowledging that point. He has brought a welcome breath of fresh air to the education debate, which was good to see. The First Minister has also obliquely acknowledged our argument. He may argue about the amount, but whatever it is, it is substantial and is there to be saved.
Action, as opposed to a quick fix, is required for a sustainable remodelling of the system. Those who work in primary schools will continue to hold the line, provided that they can see light at the end of the tunnel. The sooner the Minister can draw all the strands together and present a cohesive plan, the better. She will have our support for the constructive reform of educational funding and structures, and, in particular, as highlighted by today’s debate, for primary-school funding.

Michelle McIlveen: We have heard a great deal about statistics already. However, sometimes it is easy to forget about the human issues when facts and figures are thrown about. The Committee for Education heard from primary-school principals who told us about the financial realities that they face in managing a school. I visited primary schools throughout my own Strangford constituency, and, along with party colleagues, I went to several primary schools in north and west Belfast only last week.
I am sure that many Members have received letters that are similar to the many that have been posted to my office. Headlines last week told of the high levels of absence among teachers, which results in part of the education budget being used to pay substitute teachers. This year alone, 18,698 teaching days have been lost because of stress-related illnesses. Given the conditions under which many primary-school teachers have to work, I find myself echoing Frank Bunting of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) in saying that I am surprised that the figure is not higher.
I am aware of schools in my own constituency that have had their extended-schools funding removed and now have to rely on parent-teacher associations (PTA) to raise funds. Parents are willing to do that because they care about their children’s futures. As a result, they are prepared to go that extra mile to help, tough as that is in today’s economic climate.
The East Belfast Primary and Nursery Principals’ Group identified several areas in which core funding is grossly inadequate, including: no release time for teachers; a lack of administrative support; no ICT support for primary schools because they cannot afford it; an inability to afford technical and classroom assistants’ support; a lack of pastoral-care support; poor special-needs provision; and a poor level of resourcing. Such issues are not exclusive to East Belfast.
One school that I visited could not afford a part-time secretary, and the principal was left to fulfil that role on top of her other duties. The Minister needs to address such problems before she can call every school a good school.
Schools are often forced to teach large composite classes as a result of laying teachers off in order to meet their budgets. They are unable to invest in the resources that are needed to teach the revised curriculum. It seems grossly negligent to me that a new curriculum is implemented when schools are ill-equipped to cope with it. There is embarrassment if schools get into debt, which is an additional burden that principals have to carry. Essentially, the principal is left to try to make terms meet.
As we heard, additional funding is available through departmental initiatives. However, principals apply for such initiatives only to find that the funding is stopped before any real benefits are realised. There are times when as much as £14,000 is spent on computers because the money needs to be spent; however, principals are aware of areas in which such money could have been much more beneficial. Principals are being distracted from their real jobs by having to chase funding for their schools.
One member of the Committee described the Department’s initiatives as being like using a plaster. It is time that the Minister and her Department started to treat the illness rather than applying first aid. There is an acknowledgement — even among people in the Department — that it would suit them to produce a better formula in order to better distribute the funds to schools. That would enable the principals to distribute the money in a way that addresses the needs of their particular schools. Furthermore, the Department needs to make efficiency savings in order to raise the proportion of the education budget that is allocated to front-line education.
At present, a paltry 63% goes to front-line education. In the rest of the UK, that figure is in the region of 80%.
It is self-evident that primary-school and early-years learning are of the utmost importance. Teaching during that period sets the framework for later learning. Those are the formative years. It is during that time that difficulties with literacy and numeracy can be tackled before they become real problems. Addressing that at primary level leaves pupils free at secondary level to broaden their minds. We are not creating a satisfactory learning atmosphere for our children, and they will carry that on to secondary-level education.
It is time that the Minister focused on the growing crisis in primary schools. Now is the time for action. In the last year, all that we have seen from the Minister is prevarication. She talks a lot about failures and labelling failures, but her Department is failing primary schools and, as a consequence, failing our children.
There is deep frustration among principals, teachers and parents — some of whom are present today to hear this debate — that children are not getting the education to which they are entitled. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil sé ceart agus cóir níos mó airgead a thabhairt don scolaíocht.
I support the motion and welcome its being tabled.
Last month, I joined Members, including Basil McCrea, Dominic Bradley, and the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mervyn Storey, in the Long Gallery — [Interruption.]

Francie Molloy: I ask Members to check that their mobile phones are switched off.

Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat. In the Long Gallery, I listened intently to a presentation from primary-school principals, of which more than 130 were present. It is significant that so many considered the matter sufficiently important that they left the school setting for a whole day, which can be disruptive, to come here to express their views.
During that presentation, I heard concerns for the well-being and stress levels of principals and teachers; I keep hearing that. It may not be easy for people who are not parents or governors or do not have occasion to visit a primary school to understand the degree of pressure and stress that is placed on teachers and principals nowadays.
Being a member of a board of governors affords me some opportunity to gain that insight. Today, I declare an interest, as a governor of St Lawrence’s Primary School, Fintona; St Patrick’s Primary School, Eskra; and St Patrick’s Primary School, Garvallagh. I call on other Members, during this debate, to declare an interest as a member of a board of governors, if they have not already done so.
The pressures placed on principals and teachers include the revised curriculum, various initiatives, and performance review and staff development (PRSD), over which principals must preside.
Teachers have increasingly said that they need space to teach, with which we agree. If primary schools were to be granted additional funding they could employ someone with specialist expertise, such as an IT co-ordinator or, as Michelle McIlveen said, a part-time secretary, as required. That would help to free up the teaching principal. If schools were to get extra money it could lead to smaller class sizes, improved planning, preparation and assessment time for teachers, increased and improved learning resources, and more staff and management support.
I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges that the gap in funding between primary 7 pupils and year 8 pupils in a post-primary setting must be narrowed in the future. I also observe that that greatly exercised the Committee for Education. Everybody is increasingly aware that the earlier an intervention is made, the better that is for achieving results in schools.
Mervyn Storey called for the Minister and the Department to be proactive and imaginative, and I echo that call. John O’Dowd said that we should work collectively to garner more finance for education, because education is everyone’s business. The SDLP likes to say that it voted against the Budget, but it remains a fact that Margaret Ritchie, the SDLP Minister, voted for the Budget when she was in the Executive room, at the Executive table. The SDLP is, therefore, rather disingenuous when it makes that point.
Finally, I welcome the fact that Mervyn Storey and other DUP MLAs recently visited schools on the Shankill Road. Perhaps they can get on message with those principals about academic selection and the 11-plus, because the DUP has not been on message with those principals for many years.

Nelson McCausland: I will start by declaring that I am on the board of governors of Carr’s Glen Primary School, Ligoniel Primary School and Wheatfield Primary School. I am also a member of the Belfast Education and Library Board.
So much — indeed, too much — of the debate on education has concerned the age of 11 and, with it, the issues of transfer and selection. The emphasis should be on children’s early years, including the years spent in primary school. If children can get off to a good start, many of the problems that occur in later years would be dealt with and could be avoided. If educational disadvantages and inequalities can be dealt with at an early stage, the primary and secondary sectors would benefit, as would the children and society. More investment is needed at an early stage.
The Committee for Education heard from principals across the Province, and there was a unanimous voice no matter who came before the Committee. There are not enough resources at primary level, and there are too many special funds and special, short-term projects. The money is in the departmental budget, but, unfort­unately, much of it is unwisely directed.
There is a general issue about primary-school funding across the Province. I must, however, speak on behalf of the teachers in my constituency. There are very special problems in the Shankill area and North Belfast. The Chairman of the Committee recently visited the Malvern, Springhill, Springfield and Edenbrooke primary schools in the Shankill area. He will soon receive a request to visit schools in North Belfast, if he has not already received that request.
Principals of schools in the Shankill area and North Belfast came to the Committee, and they spoke about the particular problems that they faced. They pointed out that they had benefited from extended schools funding, but there was now a question over that funding because it had been reduced — it was even removed from some schools. Many of them had benefited from interface and Renewing Communities funding, but both of those had gone.
In the June monitoring round, the Minister put extended schools into her list of bids. However, there was no mention of interface or Renewing Communities funding. If she had put those into her bid as part of the June monitoring round, more money — even at this point in the year — could have been put into primary schools in those needy areas. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel would have responded positively to those requests. The tragedy, however, is that the Minister did not even bother to ask, despite the fact that those school principals said that that funding should have been requested.
John O’Dowd asked for people to listen. Perhaps he should ask the Minister to listen to the principals who came to the Committee and clearly set out those issues.
The Minister did not bother. Yet schools such as Malvern Primary School, Edenbrook Primary School and Currie Primary School, which have difficult situations, have benefited to some small degree from that money over the past few years. The money was welcome, although it was not the perfect scenario, because the money came with restrictions; it would have been better if the money had gone directly to the schools.
However, there are ways of saving money in current budgets so that money can be directed to primary schools. Special short-term initiatives tend to be costly and involve costs for setting-up, monitoring and reporting to the school and to the board — a whole range of issues. They are not the most efficient way of saving money. The most efficient course of action is to direct the money to the schools. A review of the funding formula for primary schools, taking particular account not only of social advantage but of educational disadvantage, is the way forward. I hope that when the review takes place, educational disadvantage will be one of the criteria, along with social disadvantage, and we will then see the children in those areas benefit.

Ken Robinson: I am a governor of two schools — Hollybank Primary School on Monkstown estate and Whiteabbey Primary School. I also declare an interest as a former member of the North Eastern Education and Library Board and, perhaps most damning of all, as a former primary-school principal.
The issue of the differential in funding between primary and post-primary schools lies at the heart of the motion. In Northern Ireland, the funding for primary-school pupils stands at 66% of the funding for post-primary pupils. In monetary terms, that translates as £2,646 for each primary-school pupil, compared to £4,021 for each post-primary-school pupil. That compares to a differential of 78% in England, 71% in Scotland and 82% in Wales. The discrepancy revealed by those figures is of a sufficient size to be statistically significant and worrying. To make matters worse, the UK is not known for its generosity to primary-school pupils. Indeed, out of 29 countries, the UK has the twelfth lowest investment in primary education. That puts Northern Ireland at the bottom of the table once again — a position that must be addressed without delay.
I am not persuaded that the advent of the education and skills authority will result in administrative savings that can be redirected into front-line services in our schools. Experience has shown that any new structure in its early years invariably takes more financial resources that originally intended.
So far, under the LMS funding mechanism, the Minister has promised an increase from 1·02 to 1·05 in the age-weighted pupil units for primary-school pupils. That will not be nearly enough to address the gaping differential between primary and post-primary pupils. In fact, the Minister’s proposal will, ultimately, lead to an increase of only £102 for each pupil, which will hardly close the differential.
Primary schools are concerned about the problem, partly because of the attitude towards them which historically lies behind their underfunding. Historically, primary schools were seen as a place to shove youngsters into to get them off the streets and keep them out of other people’s hair. Therefore, they were put into large classes, with one teacher in charge, in the hope that they would be kept out of the view of society. That attitude must change. The primary-school stage is the key to the educational process. If we do not build that foundation, how can we expect the house to stand at secondary, further-education, or higher-education level? It is a historic attitude that we must break away from.
Attitudes in the Department of Education also lead to low morale in the teaching workforce. The Department often issues edicts but never seems to consider their impact. A school principal may open yet another envelope or email and trek around the school trying to break the good news — sadly, very rarely — or the bad news to his already overburdened staff.
A consultation exercise carried out by the Department of Education in 2007 revealed that 99·5% of teachers felt that their funding weighting should be increased significantly. That level of dissatisfaction should be of serious concern to the Minister.
That reveals a depth of feeling that should not and must not be ignored, and which cannot be answered by a mere 4% increase in weightings for 2010-11.
On 11 June 2008, more than 100 school principals, some of whom are present in the Public Gallery, descended on this Building to demand an extra £100 million plus for Northern Ireland’s primary schools — and rightly so. It is unfortunate that they were driven to the extent of having to come here to ask for that. Surely the Department, the boards, and the educational system must have been listening to them — if not, why not?
Principals claimed that a primary-school funding deficit of around £1,300 per pupil less than the post-primary level was unfair, unequal, and too low. That was rather mild language. They also warned that educational standards would be affected if the Government failed to invest more in the early years of education over the next two years.
I have news for the Minister: underfunding of the primary sector has seriously impaired the ability of schools to effectively deliver the numeracy and literacy targets that they are aiming for. It is a minor miracle that schools have managed to maintain levels of numeracy and literacy as high as they currently are. That achieve­ment has been bought at the expense of the health of the head teachers and all the other teachers who have struggled to try to deliver endless initiatives.
The Primary Review in England stated that:
“The Government should increase primary school budgets to match those in secondary schools to pay for specialist teachers to tackle illiteracy”.

Francie Molloy: The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Ken Robinson: I regret that I have had to rush through these important issues, but I appreciate that my time is up. I support the motion.

Martina Anderson: Go raibh maith agat. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo. I support the motion. Last week, I attended a meeting in Derry at which the Education Minister spoke passionately about her reforms of the education system. The hundreds of people in that room were left in absolutely no doubt as to the Minister’s commitment to deliver a world-class education service that cherishes all of our children equally, and which affords them every opportunity to reach their full potential in life.
Despite the often vitriolic reaction that she has met from the opponents of change, the Minister is clearly determined to pursue her reforms, because that is in the best interest of our children. I know that she enjoys the support of the vast majority of educationalists and, indeed, wider society.

Nelson McCausland: Will the Member give way?

Martina Anderson: No; you have already had time to speak. The Minister has already demonstrated her commitment in a tangible manner by increasing primary-school funding. Members will also be aware that she is engaged in an RPA rationalisation process. There are currently 50,000 empty desks in our schools, and that is simply not sustainable. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that any savings that emerge from the rationalisation process will be invested straight back into front-line services.
At the heart of this debate, there must be a realisation that, owing to the constraints under which we operate — due to the fact that some in this Chamber, and across the North, seek to retain the link with Westminster, which provides a limited block grant — the Assembly is able only to deliver a certain amount for the people whom we are elected to represent. The reality is that the block grant that we receive is simply not adequate to provide the type of services that we want to see for our people.
Members need to make a decision: do we want to continue as a plastic parliament, with all the pomp and ceremony, but little substance, or do we want to take control of our own destiny — to take control of fiscal matters, of policing and justice powers, and to start delivering real and meaningful change for all of our people?
Until we grasp that reality, I am afraid that the most that we will ever be able to do is to tinker around the edges of a Budget that we all agree is simply inadequate. Although I support the motion, I urge all Members to think seriously about their responsibilities to their constituents.
Members have all been elected to deliver a better future. The people have put their faith in us — God knows that that might be questionable when one listens to the comments of some Members. It is about time that the Assembly started to have a bit more faith in itself and to take responsibility for its own affairs. Only then will it be able to deliver meaningful change for primary-school children, post-primary schoolchildren, pensioners, working families, single parents and every sector of society. Go raibh maith agat.

Edwin Poots: I apologise that I was not present in the Chamber earlier in the debate — I was meeting members of the construction industry, which is facing serious problems. One of the issues that they raised was that capital projects are not being delivered in schools and hospitals. The industry is in crisis because decisions are not being made to move ahead quickly with capital projects. Schools are crying out for those facilities to be built.

Mervyn Storey: Is the Member aware that the Minister handed back £37 million in 2007 for capital projects that she was unable to deliver?

Edwin Poots: I am well aware of that. That is disap­pointing because many schools need capital works to be carried out and facilities to be put in place. Instead, the Minister has handed money back to the Westminster Administration. That is to the detriment of children, the construction industry and the country of Northern Ireland.

Barry McElduff: Does the Member agree that his singular failure to preside over the development of a multi-sports stadium at Long Kesh has delayed the creation of 4,000 jobs that would have done much to help the construction industry?

Edwin Poots: If the Member wishes to enter into a debate on sport, he can table a motion on that issue. This debate is on education, Mr McElduff. If you are not interested in education, you would be as well to leave the Chamber. The Assembly will discuss education, irrespective of what you wish to do.

Francie Molloy: Order. All Members must address their remarks through the Chair.

Edwin Poots: The subject of the debate is the needs of primary-school children, who currently receive £1,375 less than children in the post-primary sector. Primary-school children in England receive 79% of the funding that is received by children in secondary schools. In Scotland, that figure is 72%, and in Northern Ireland it is just under 62%. That demonstrates the significant difference in the value that is placed on primary-school children and on that education sector in Northern Ireland, vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not good enough.
During the latest Education Committee meeting, I listened to Mr O’Dowd, who was extremely defensive — I could not understand why, because, in fairness, the current situation was inherited from direct rule Ministers. I suspect that if Sinn Féin goes ahead with its threat to pull down the institutions by Christmas if policing and justice powers are not devolved, that party will attack direct rule Ministers in a year’s time for underfunding the post-primary sector, if that were the situation. Because that party happens to be in charge of the education portfolio at present, it tries to defend the indefensible.
It is evident that the primary-school sector needs more resources to enable it to deal with children’s particular needs. Northern Ireland has a serious problem of educational underachievement. Many young people leave school without requisite numeracy and literacy skills. Instead of focus being directed at pet projects of social change, the concentration should be on where the problem starts. Virtually all educationalists agree that that problem originates during children’s early years. It is clear that failings exist in preschool provision and in the early years of primary school.
I have heard the Minister say that she is concerned with tackling educational underachievement. That problem must be tackled at its core, which is in the primary-school sector. The issue of funding for that sector must be addressed in order to ensure that children get the right start and that they achieve adequate numeracy and literacy skills by Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. If resources were in place to assist children in the important early years, the secondary-school sector would not have to pick up the pieces after children had failed in their primary-school years.
I will welcome and fundamentally embrace change if the Minister’s changes really are about tackling educational underachievement at the source of the problem. I hear a great deal about change, but it is often change for change’s sake. The changes that are necessary and that will make a difference to children must be identified so that when they go out into the world of employment, they are prepared young people.
I lay down a challenge to the Minister. If she is serious about tackling educational underachievement, she must forget about her pet projects and about funding policies to which she is favourably disposed. She must provide funding to the primary sector, where it is required.

Billy Armstrong: The motion addresses an important issue facing the future of society in Northern Ireland. I, along with other Ulster Unionist MLAs, recently met a delegation of more than 100 primary-school principals from all sectors, who came to Stormont to express their frustration at the lack of funding for the primary sector. I appeal to the House to unite behind the motion for the sake of our children.
Funding for primary schools in Northern Ireland is far below that of all other regions in the United Kingdom. One does not need much persuading that the heads of primary schools have a point, and that point must be addressed.
Recent debates on education have centred on the question of academic selection, and it has been said often that the system fails children at age 11. I know the importance of a good primary-school education, because I left school soon after my fourteenth birthday. If children have not managed to acquire basic educational skills at primary school, it does not matter how they transfer to post-primary school. If the basics have not been picked up at primary school, children will be at a huge disadvantage when trying to make up the ground at secondary level, no matter at what age they transfer or how much money is spent at secondary level.
It cannot be denied that money that is invested in education at primary level will pay dividends further down the line. We must accept that not all children will have equal chances in life. Some children’s parents will value education; others will not. Some children will have parents who have spare time to sit with them and help them with their homework. Other children will not be as fortunate, because their parents have demanding jobs and do not have the spare time to be able to help. Factors such as income and nutrition will also have an impact.
In the real world, schools will never be able to eradicate such disadvantages, but it is surely not asking too much for them to seek to promote equality of opportunity for children inside the school gates, at least as far as the basics of the three Rs are concerned. In an ideal world, the teacher should be able to intervene to help a child who is falling behind in the basics to catch up. That would only be possible with smaller class sizes, which would allow the teacher to give individual attention to the children who needed it most.
That has a cost implication, but what are the hidden costs — not just financial — of the thousands of children who leave primary and secondary school with poor literacy and numeracy skills, leaving them handicapped in the labour market?
What about the cost to employers who cannot find workers with even basic education skills, or to taxpayers who must pay for benefits that go to people who are virtually unemployable. What about the human cost in unfulfilled potential? A great deal could be avoided by increasing investment in primary-level education.
Additional resources are required to ensure that pupils are not left behind due to a lack of English language skills. That is only right, because such skills will help integration and social cohesion. If sufficient assistance to primary-level pupils is not provided, even more money will have to be spent in attempting to rectify mistakes when those pupils reach secondary level and are falling even further behind. The same principle must apply to all schools; get the basics right at primary-school level, and the jobs of secondary-school teachers will be made easier. That should be the aim not only of the Minister of Education but of all Members.

Jonathan Craig: I shall begin by declaring my interests. I am on the board of governors for Harmony Hill Primary School, Killowen Primary School and Laurelhill Community College.
There is no question that extreme pressure has been put on primary-school principals, especially over the past couple of years. Numerous principals — not only in my constituency, but throughout Northern Ireland — have been suffering from increasing degrees of sickness due to stress. However, that stress is not caused by teaching. Although teaching puts a lot of pressure on principals and primary-school teachers, the stress to which I am referring is caused by budgetary pressures, and the Chairperson of the Committee for Education referred to that earlier.
What did the Department do about that this year? From the extra £102 a pupil that each primary school was given, £61 went to cover inflation; £17 was spent on cleaners’ pay rises; £10 must be spent on additional fuel costs, and that figure is rising; and the paltry £14 that is left over does little to relieve schools’ financial pressures.
Furthermore, if one studies the figures closely, there has been paltry investment in the revised curriculum. Although there are areas to which the Minister has little or no trouble giving extra money — such as GAA matches and joint Irish-Spanish lessons — there has been no investment in the core primary school curriculum. The Minister appears to have no problem in finding money for her hidden political agenda.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Considering other jurisdictions, the Scottish Parliament’s goal is to have only 18 pupils in each class from P1 to P3. Why is that? Maybe the Scottish Parliament consider achieving that objective to be a sounder investment in their children’s education and future. Urgent action is required and, unlike other Members, I take nothing for granted. I do not assume that the Minister will review funding. In fact, I cannot identify any urgency in her to do so.
I commend the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group (NIPPAG). When it met in April, it unanimously agreed six resolutions, which have been presented to the Department of Education and, indeed, to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The situation in Northern Ireland is completely unacceptable.
Members referred to the fact that a P7 child attracts £1,258 a year less in core funding than a year 8 child in secondary school. That is unacceptable and leads to major difficulties for primary schools.
NIPPAG has made some demands, including smaller classes and planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time for teachers. In England, all teachers are allowed to spend 10% of their time on PPA, but in Northern Ireland, teachers do not get that time. More and better learning resources, and more support staff and manage­ment support, were also among the demands. It is unacceptable that primary-school funding of that type has been cut to the absolute core. Primary-school principals are left with practically no money for school adminis­tration. That ridiculous situation must be addressed.
I listened with absolute astonishment to some Members’ remarks today. They blamed the block budget for all the faults in the education system. That is an amazing thing to say when we consider that the British taxpayers —

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Jonathan Craig: The British taxpayers subsidise not only education, but the whole system here, to the tune of £4·5 billion. I support the motion.

Kieran McCarthy: I must first declare an interest: I am honoured to serve on the board of governors in two of the many excellent primary schools on the Ards Peninsula, namely St Patrick’s Primary School in Ballygalget, and Portaferry Integrated Primary School. I fully support this important motion and commend the Education Committee for bringing it before the Assembly for debate, and, I hope, action.
I welcome the presence of the Education Minister in the Chamber today. I hope that she will be totally convinced by our argument that primary-school children are being sold short when compared to those in other regions of the UK. That anomaly must be rectified without delay.
Unfortunately, I was unable to be present at the recent gathering in this Building of the many primary-school principals. However, they can be assured of my full support in their endeavours to get parity of treatment and the appropriate funding to manage their schools and enable their pupils to attain the highest possible educational standards. Everyone agrees on this issue, even the Minister herself, who wrote to NIPPAG on 31 July 2007:
“I do believe that the funding differential currently between primary and secondary is too great.”
The question is: how and when can that discrepancy be put right? It is entirely up to the Minister. The Minister also stated that:
“I am convinced that investment in early intervention delivers real benefits in improving access to learning and thus reducing later differences.”
It is good to hear the Minister acknowledge those facts, but she really must follow up her words with action.
At their conference in Cookstown in April, the Primary Principals’ Action Group passed six resolutions which it sees as paramount to delivering a first-class schools system for students. I give my full support to those six basic resolutions. Indeed, I appeal to the Minister and her Department to take whatever steps are necessary to deliver on those basic demands.
As the Alliance Party’s health spokesperson, I paid particular attention to the fourth resolution. We acknowledge the stresses and strains experienced by all schoolteachers, and we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that their health and well-being is paramount. We must prevent the Health Service from having to unnecessarily fund the return to health of many in the teaching profession. Such health problems could and should have been avoided in the first place if sufficient funding had been put in place to allow our primary-school principals and staff to deliver the world-class education system and results to which we all aspire.
I commend all our teachers on their excellent contribution to education, as well as the parents who help to raise funds throughout the year to enable principals to purchase extra facilities —indeed, sometimes just the basic necessities — for the benefit of the pupils.
Teachers are like all other tradespeople: if they do not have the right tools for the job, the job can remain only half done, and that is unacceptable.
The Minister of Education once said that she did not want to be a Minister if all that she could deliver was second-class education provision for Northern Ireland. I plead with Minister Ruane to listen to school principals, the Committee for Education and to her Assembly colleagues today, and deliver proper funding for the success of primary schools.
I commend Victoria Primary School in my constit­uency, which Members will have seen on television last night, for being number one for energy saving. I hope that the Minister will not take any funding away from that school because it is being energy efficient.

Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not declaring an interest in that I am on the board of governors of Carr Primary School, Meadow Bridge Primary School and Riverdale Primary School.

Mary Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the board of governors of St Brigid’s Primary School in Derry, just in case Barry McElduff is concerned that I did not declare that interest.

Alastair Ross: I was just waiting for any further advances. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Although I am not a member of the Committee for Education, I have been contacted by several principals in my East Antrim constituency about this issue.
At this stage in the debate, many of the issues have already been covered. However, I am a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, and I come at the matter from a slightly different angle. On that Committee, we have taken evidence about how many young adults in Northern Ireland lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills that they need in order to get on in life and find a good job. The frequency of the evidence that the Committee hears, and the number of young adults who do not have those skills, is startling.
Those people did not stop being able to read and write once they turned 16 years of age; they could never read or write. That is a direct result of their educational experience in their earliest years. Some 20% of children in Northern Ireland leave school without the appropriate level of numeracy and literacy skills, with the evidence pointing to the fact that that is most acute in inner-city areas, particularly among boys in Protestant areas.
Education is the building block for life. Early-years education is imperative for society, because today’s children will be the workforce of the future. Many education debates have focused on post-primary education, academic selection and grammar schools. Members opposite repeatedly claim that a child’s future should not be determined at the age of 11. A child’s future is not determined at the age of 11, because, for most children, their educational opportunities and experiences in their earliest years will impact directly on their future attainment and academic ability. That is why primary schools must be well funded, and that, as an Assembly and a society, we recognise the importance of early-years education. It is, after all, in primary school where we learn to read and write.
We have heard the facts and figures from other Members, and it has been clearly recognised that, in Northern Ireland, the gulf between the money that primary schools receive in comparison with secondary schools is much greater than in England and Wales. There is also evidence that, if the figures from Northern Ireland were taken on their own, we would be lagging behind with regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development table in the ratio between the money that the Government invest in primary education compared with secondary education.

Ian McCrea: Does my colleague agree that, with regard to the disparity of funding between primary and secondary schools, the answer is not to force teachers to take compulsory redundancies but to make extra funding available?

Alastair Ross: That is the fact of the matter. Indeed, in July 2007, the Minister conceded that the funding differential between primary and secondary schools is too great. It is not a question of taking money away from other areas. However, we must ensure that, where money is focused, it goes to the right areas.
When I speak to primary-school principals, they are the first to say that they do not feel that the funding should necessarily be removed from secondary schools. They make the point, however, that resources must be available for them to do their job.
Over the past few months, we have heard a great deal about the credit crunch. As Mr Storey said in his opening comments, that comes at a time of increasing costs to heat buildings and to pay for fuel for minibuses — or for what, at a school that I recently visited, the children called the venga bus, and sang how the “venga bus is coming” when the minibus arrived. There are also issues such as paying for staff and cleaners, as well as natural inflation. Those costs all add up, and they make life very difficult for principals.
In the Chamber, we have often heard that we need to invest in the education of young people and focus on early-years education. That was mentioned again today. However, it is no coincidence that the most successful countries invest in young people’s education, and we must do likewise. The primary sector must be funded properly to ensure that people leave primary school with the level of numeracy and literacy skills that they require. That means that we stop throwing money at schemes and activities that are politically motivated or short-lived initiatives. Resources must be targeted at core learning.
Mr McCarthy referred to a number of the issues that were highlighted by the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group.
In my closing minute, I will turn briefly to the issue of class sizes. We have been told that a child in year 8 receives £1,250 more funding than a child in year 7, thus allowing secondary schools to have smaller class sizes. As my colleague for Lagan Valley Mr Craig said, reducing class sizes has been a priority in Scotland. There has been a great deal of research into the issue, and there is also a big move in the United States to reduce class sizes.
The statistics that show the results of taking such action speak for themselves. Evidence shows that if a class has fewer than 20 pupils, that has a dramatically positive effect on pupils’ results and attainment. Indeed, in other countries, Governments decided to focus money on education for early years. Although cost is an issue, we must ensure that the money that the Minister spends on schemes goes to the right places and makes a real difference to academic attainment.
I support the motion and hope that the Minister takes the relevant action to ensure that no child leaves school without the necessary numeracy and literacy skills.

Danny Kennedy: I join with others in welcoming the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the boards of governors of Bessbrook Primary School and Newry High School. It is significant that, on the Assembly’s last day of term, we are focusing on this important issue. There is a growing and significant body of evidence that outlines the reason that it is vital that there is adequate and significant investment in the initial years of education. It is known that children develop most quickly in their formative years. Therefore, it is crucial that they gain a firm foundation in literacy, numeracy and academic skills.
The Institute of Education in the University of London worked on the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project, which found that children who attended a primary school that was identified as academically more effective had better outcomes at the age of 10 than those who attended less-effective primary schools. Additionally, children who attended effective primary schools showed reduced antisocial behaviour and an increased possibility of gaining a higher education.
That study is backed up by other opinions such as those of Professor Heckman and Professor Robin Alexander, who is the former director of the Primary Review in England. Although there is now overwhelming evidence to suggest that investment in primary education is crucial to the future success of children and society, we have to ask why 99·5% of primary schools in Northern Ireland believe that their funding needs to be increased. Why is there a difference of more than £1,258 between funding for primary-school children and funding for secondary-school children in Northern Ireland?

Basil McCrea: Is the Member aware that the Minister attempted to increase primary-school funding to close the differential, but that that small increase was insufficient, compared with the increase for secondary schools?
In fact, despite attempting to increase that funding, the outcome was an increase of £8 in the differential between the two sectors.

Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to my colleague for highlighting that fact. I agree entirely, and we expect the Minister to address that issue later in the debate.
Why do we persist with a funding scheme that discriminates against primary-school pupils? Furthermore, the ratio of funding for primary-school children in Northern Ireland — in proportion to funding in secondary schools — is much lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Previously, the Minister stated:
“all grant-aided schools at all phases … receive delegated funding according to their relative need.”
Is the relative need of primary-school children in Northern Ireland less than that of children in the rest of the United Kingdom? Sadly, the Minister of Education has taken her eye off the ball. Instead of focusing on educational issues, the Minister has pursued a political agenda, focusing on the transfer of children at the age of 11. Unfortunately, her agenda has been to fulfil a party-political plan, rather than an educational one.
The idea that problems can be solved solely by increased efficiency is an insult to teachers. Moreover, it is an easy, glib and political answer. A comprehensive review is necessary, and the Minister must examine measures and introduce new proposals to increase significantly funding to primary schools, otherwise it will send the message to parents, children and teachers in Northern Ireland that they are less valued than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Primary schools require smaller class sizes, increased planning and preparation time for teachers, more — and better — learning resources, and greater management support, and it is paramount that we deliver those improvements. I support the motion, and I hope that the Minister will engage positively with the Committee for Education and attempt to find solutions.

Jim Shannon: W B Yeats said:
“Education is not the filling of a bucket, but the lighting of a fire.”
I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Glastry College.
Tha Edyecatshun o’oor yung yins is yin o’ graet muckle respoansibility, we put oor greatest tresur in tae tha hauns o’ P1 teechers as we luk at theim takkin oor wean bi tha haun an leed theim intae a’ new woarl o’ larnin. We haep that they wull git tae ken eech wean an help theim reech their goal as they delve intae tha woarls o’ wurds an nummers.
The education of our children is a major responsibility; we place our greatest treasure in the hands of the P1 teacher, who takes our children by the hand and leads them into a new world of education. We trust those teachers to get to know all of the children and to help them achieve their potential as they explore the world of words and numbers. We expect them to understand and work with each child as a unique person, while attaining educational targets for that age group — we demand a lot from teachers.
Resources must be made available to enable teachers to do their jobs effectively. Primary-school days are the most important and, perhaps, the simplest time in life. During those days, you went to school and could not wait for the bell to ring and release you to play with your friends. In school, you listened to the teacher, obeyed her requests, learnt tables and letters, studied the map to learn the countries of the world and listened to stories of historic battles. Although teachers still teach the basics, they also teach sciences, IT, French and crafts before a door is opened into secondary-school education.
I do not question teachers’ ability to provide a more intensive education. Northern Ireland has the most qualified teachers in the world, who are capable of achieving educational targets. However, the Assembly does not allocate sufficient resources to allow them to do so.

William McCrea: We must bear in mind what we are asking our teachers to do. Is it not ridiculous that the Department of Education can deny a board of governors the right to use money wisely for the education of children in the situation where a school requires an additional mobile classroom and its board of governors, because of their financial stewardship, are willing to pay for it from their own budget?

Mr Speaker: The Member will be allowed some extra time to speak.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am looking forward to that extra minute.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr McCrea. As he says, the problem is that teachers need the resources to enable them to do their job. As class sizes swell, teachers have to cope with up to 30 pupils, and have to get to know each child while treating them all equally and while trying to squeeze every aspect of the curriculum into the school year. That is almost impossible, and it is obvious that more time is needed, for example, to bring the most badly-behaved children round or, indeed, to identify those children who will excel and encourage them. In the middle, many children need more help and more time, and teachers are finding it impossible to divide their time.
We always come back to funding. The more funding that is available, the more teachers we will have who will be able to spend one-on-one time with each child in order to help them achieve their full potential. The simple maths that I was taught in school — that was not yesterday — sticks with me. If more resources are made available, better quality teaching can be offered. If more support staff are taken on, learning programmes and the standard of education will be better. The equation is simple, as is the part that the Department of Education must play. It must stop throwing money away needlessly; it must fund primary schools properly so that they can do the job that the Department — and every parent — is asking them to do.
I have been inundated with letters from parents, teachers and boards of governors. I will quote from one of them:
“It is indefensible that the Northern Ireland Executive presides over a situation where Primary schools in Northern Ireland receive only 61·8% funding of that of Secondary schools. Also, it is totally unacceptable that a secondary school pupil in Year 8 attracts £1,258 per year more than a child in Primary 7. In order for Primary schools to deliver what is now expected of them a significant increase in resources is now urgently required.”
The author of that letter goes on to say that in a recent survey comparing primary and secondary school funding per pupil, Northern Ireland, if ranked alone, would be twenty-sixth out of 29. The letter continues:
“This is hardly the way to build the economic prosperity and social cohesion our country needs now and in the future.”
If we want the right results, we must spend the money to build the foundation. I ask the Minister and the Department to ensure that the necessary and correct funding is made available urgently. The Department must ensure that all schools are viable and have the correct number of pupils. It must stop using education funding to make political points and gestures. If it made the money available, the difference to young people’s lives and education would be noticeable. I urge the Minister and the Department to do the right thing: allocate the money properly, and not on a political basis, and secure the future of our children as a matter of urgency. I support the motion.

Caitriona Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Committee for Education for the opportunity to respond to the debate on funding for primary schools. I welcome that the Committee would like more resources to be made available to primary schools. I also welcome the work of primary-school principals, and I thank them. It is fitting, at the end of the school year, to thank them for all their invitations to their schools and for the discussions that I have had with them. I have been in schools from every sector in communities throughout the North.
I also pay tribute to teachers. Like many others, I have been listening to the radio. It is very easy to bash teachers at this time of the year. I wish them the best as they go on their holidays, although many of them — and their support staff — will be working in the schools throughout the summer. I assure them that we support the fact that they have holidays. All of us, parents, teachers, educationalists and politicians alike, understand the importance of teacher holidays — both for them and for the children.
I sincerely welcome that the primary principals throughout the North are working hard to raise the issue of the disparity of funding between primary and post-primary schools.
I look forward to the support of all my colleagues on all Benches when I seek resources to continue increasing funding to the primary-school sector. I look forward to working with them all.
I am delighted that the loud voices of primary-school principals are being heard. I am delighted that the trade unions, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation and the Ulster Teachers’ Union, are working for the primary-school staff. I have attended their conferences; I pay tribute to the work that they do, and I listen to what they say, as do others, when they seek more funding. I hope that the Members opposite will also listen to those unions when they talk about the impact on our young people of academic selection at age 11. I note that all the teachers’ unions released a statement about that last week.
Tá mé cinnte de na buntáistí de bheith ag infheistíocht inár mbunscoileanna. Tá ról bunúsach acu ag leagan dúshraith an oideachais; agus chomh maith leis sin, is iontu a dhéantar an idirghabháil luath atá ríthábhachtach ag cosc nó ag laghdú deacrachtaí foghlama sa todhchaí.
I am convinced of the benefits of investing in primary schools. They play a fundamental role in laying the foundations for education and in providing the early intervention that is so vital in preventing or reducing future difficulties in learning. Equally, I am fully committed to ensuring that those in greatest need receive the support and opportunities necessary to enable future school-leavers to break the cycle of deprivation that continues to affect many in our society.
Like the Members who spoke, I recognise that children should acquire in early education the basic skills that are necessary for success. As announced in my education budget on 12 February 2008, for the next three years, there will be a strong focus on early-years and primary education, including adjustments to the formula funding that is distributed to all schools, and specific funding for foundation-stage support. There is funding of £12 million as direct support to primary principals, who will be able to avail themselves of two days’ release from teaching duties, as they requested. Furthermore, £8 million a year, for the next three years, will be available for early-years services.
Chuir mé barúlacha bunscoileanna agus grúpaí eile san áireamh ar mhaoiniú LMS, agus d’fhreagair mé ar na hábhair is imní dóibh tríd an ualú dhalta bunscoile a mhéadú ó 1·02 go 1·4 in 2008-09. Rinne mé seo le maoiniú LMS a mhéadú de réir a chéile thar thréimhse an Bhuiséid.
I have taken on board the views of primary schools and others on local management of schools (LMS) funding issues, and I have responded to those concerns by increasing the primary-pupil weighting from 1·02 to 1·04 in 2008-09, with a view to increasing progressively the relative funding levels distributed to primary schools, under the LMS funding arrangements, across the budget period.
In the £20·4 million uplift to school budgets for 2008-09, compared to that of 2007-08, some £12·67 million was directed to primary schools. That represents an overall cash uplift of more than 3% and 4% a pupil. For 2008-09, the average increase of £102 a primary-school pupil is higher than the average increase for post-primary-school pupils.
I also brought in a sports and languages programme. I hope that Members understand the importance of physical fitness in dealing with the rising levels of obesity. I aimed that programme at primary schools, especially at P1 and P2 pupils, so that children can acquire fundamental skills, such as ball and co-ordination skills, at a very early age.
I also hope that Members were not suggesting that learning a second language at an early age will not be useful to our children in an increasingly global society. If we examine growth areas for languages in Europe, and if we wish to play our role in Europe, Spanish — Español — and Irish are two key, official languages — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Caitriona Ruane: I visited schools, the GAA and the IFA, and I witnessed the success of the various programmes that I introduced. The sports and languages programme is not merely another initiative; it is a long-term programme that we will continue to promote.
I would do more — I would do a lot more — if I had more money at my disposal. Only last week, my bids for additional money from the June monitoring round — for extended schools and to meet increased fuel and food costs — were turned down. I welcome the Finance Minister’s mention of extended schools in his speech because it is a very good programme. As Members will know, I have raised the importance of extended schools at every available opportunity, whether in writing or at forums. I welcome the fact that the Finance Minister is listening to me now.
Significant resources are also being made available to primary schools outside the current formula-funding arrangements. An additional £32 million over the next three years, including £7 million in the 2008 financial year, will be made available to support primary schools with the delivery of the foundation stage of the revised curriculum. Primary 1and primary 2 teachers are aware of just how important the initiative is. The additional funding will, for the first time, provide every year 1 and year 2 class with access to classroom assistants. A further £12 million will be available specifically to ensure that teaching principals of primary schools are released from teaching duties at least two days a week. The initiative represents significant new money for primary schools. As I have said before — idir lúibíní — give me the money and I will put it into our primary schools because that is where it needs to go.
I recognise that many people, including primary-school principals, want more rapid progress to reflect the importance of primary learning in the balance of funding distributed across all schools. I also readily acknowledge that the differential between primary-school funding and that of the other phases — as measured by the average per pupil — is too wide. From day one, I have said consistently that I want more funding to be directed to early intervention, and for the gap between primary and post-primary funding to be reduced.
I welcome the interest of all politicians in working-class children and social disadvantage. I ask the Members on the Benches opposite to understand the impact of the current selective system on children of social disadvantage.

Alastair Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Caitriona Ruane: Through the Chair.
I ask the Members on the Benches opposite to talk to the primary-school principals and teachers who, year after year, have had to pick up the pieces when children are told that they are failures.

Danny Kennedy: Will the Minister give way?

Caitriona Ruane: No; the Minister will not give way. Members have had their chance to speak.
I ask the Members on the Benches opposite to talk to the educationalists. The vast majority — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We have had a two-hour debate, which was the time allocated by the Business Committee. Every Member in the House has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Minister is now responding to the debate. Members must allow the Minister to respond without being interrupted.

Caitriona Ruane: I will repeat myself, just in case people did not hear me over the interruptions from the Members on the Benches opposite. I ask those Members to talk to teachers and principals in primary, post-primary and secondary schools in their constituencies about the impact of the selective system.

Mervyn Storey: The issue is funding.

Caitriona Ruane: No, the impact of it —

Mervyn Storey: The issue is funding.

Caitriona Ruane: The selective system fails far too many of our young people, sending them out into a difficult world without the appropriate qualifications.
As I have said on many occasions, I am not prepared to preside over education apartheid. The Members opposite may do that, but I will not.
I am sure that Members who are concerned about funding for primary schools will join me in advising primary-school principals not to use their resources to further the aims of a private organisation that proposes private tests.
Various figures have been suggested to me and comparisons have been used, stating how many more resources need to be directed into primary-school funding. Officials have provided details to the Committee for Education on the quantum of suggested funding, stating that £200 per primary-school pupil equates to an additional funding need of approximately £31 million; and funding of £800 per primary-school pupil — as suggested by some — would cost about £123 million. I would love to have that money, and I look forward to every political party in the Assembly supporting me when I make a bid for £123 million. — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Caitriona Ruane: Such funding is not available to me — even though much of it comes into a block grant — and could be delivered only through extensive cuts to other essential services. What services will I cut?

Basil McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Caitriona Ruane: I will not give way.
I would love to secure more funding, and I look forward to the support of all Members when I bid for further resources.
If one of my Executive colleagues were to suggest moving money from one of their departmental responsibilities — such as health or housing — I would be more than willing to take him or her up on that. I would welcome any additional funding to enhance the provision of learning for pupils at all levels. I have argued for education priorities in the Budget priorities for the Assembly, and I will continue to do so. Further­more, I look forward to the support of the Committee for Education when, jointly, we lobby the Finance Minister. When we are at it, we will also lobby the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, because if we are serious about dealing with underachievement in our selective system, we need to put more money into that system.
I assure the House that I am determined to ensure that funding provision best supports learners in schools at all levels and that, within the available resources, there is an increased emphasis on early learning and support for the most disadvantaged. However, the figures that are being used to illustrate the difference in funding for primary schools do not provide an accurate picture of relative levels of funding.
The oft-quoted differential of 61·8% for a primary pupil compared to a post-primary pupil reflects only the age-weighted pupil unit funding delegated to schools under the formula-funding arrangements. That does not take account of all other funding factors, including some —

William McCrea: Is it in order for the Minister to plead poverty and look for £120 million when she handed back £50 million to the Exchequer?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Caitriona Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. The oft-quoted differential of 61·8% for a primary-school pupil compared to a post-primary pupil reflects only the age-weighted pupil unit funding delegated to schools under the formula-funding arrangements. It does not take account of all other funding factors, including some that distribute significant funding to small primary schools — which I hear Members talk about constantly — in the form of small-school support and funding for above-average teaching costs. Nor does the differential take into account the significant funding, outside the formula-funded allocations, that is being made exclusively available to primary schools, with, for example, the investment of more than £20 million into the early-years primary school initiative making a good start (MAGS), the foundation stage provision and support for primary-school teaching principals.
The assessment of primary schools in the North against international comparisons of funding is simply not comparing like with like. Such comparison is always difficult. The figure for primary schools here is based on a single budgetary differential for one factor of formula funding against a table of total expenditure data for countries in 2003.
It is impossible to say whether that is the case for other countries. Without extensive research on the basis for figures and detailed assessments of expenditure in schools, it is not possible to state where schools in the North would sit in such comparative tables.
I have heard mention of other countries throughout Europe: I say to Members, go to other countries in Europe — go to Finland — and ask what they think of academic selection at 11. They think that it is disgraceful — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The Minister has the Floor.

Caitriona Ruane: They would say that it is disgraceful, discriminatory and unfair, and severely impacts on the education of our children. Those countries would not be turning a blind eye to the 12,000 people whom we are failing.
I want to emphasise the reality that, without significant increases in available resources within the totality of the education budget, the significant increases to funding being called for by primary schools could only be at the expense of those children in other phases of education, such as nursery and post-primary. The message has been received from schools and from representatives at all levels that the skewing of funding to primary level can be at the expense of stable provision for those other phases. Would anyone argue that I should rob Peter — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Caitriona Ruane: Would anyone argue that I should rob Peter to pay Sinead? I think not. Or should that be: rob Nigel to pay Sinead?
Steps are being taken to maximise the use of resources in the education system. Those changes will take time, as will the release of more funding into the front-line services provided in schools. Shortly, I will be initiating a review of existing funding arrangements that will better inform the analysis of the funding required, not just for the primary sector but for all schools. I want that review to examine funding arrangements in the South of Ireland, in England, Scotland, and Wales, and throughout Europe, and to undertake extensive consultation across the education system in order to determine future funding arrangements.
In changing the current, largely historic funding arrangements, the core focus needs to be on maintaining stability for schools and avoiding an undue impact on school budgets, which would impact on education provision. I have asked my officials to draw up a coherent framework for a review that will provide assessment against current levels of provision; alignment with outcomes; and a focus on the potential funding arrangements required to support revised educational structures, collaboration and learning communities. Significant emphasis will be placed on ensuring that all stakeholders and partner bodies — including the Committee and the trade unions — are involved in that review process, culminating in recommendations for changes.
In the interim, as the Committee will be aware, proposals are being developed for the first steps toward a review of both formula funding and funding that is outside the formula. Proposals include distributing foundation-stage funding to primary schools under the common funding formula, which will consolidate that provision for schools, giving them additional flexibility over its deployment.
For many of those involved in the delivery of education services — in schools and education and library boards — the earmarking of funding by the Department has long been a source of frustration. The introduction of the education and skills authority will provide the opportunity for the Department to fundamentally re-evaluate previous practice and tackle that issue head on. In the past, the accepted practice was to earmark money to ensure that it was spent for the purpose for which it was given. I want to change that and focus on where that money should be and on ensuring that policy and the expected outcomes are being correctly delivered.
I recognise fully the importance of providing greater autonomy to schools in managing their budgets; a balance must be struck, however, to ensure that principals and boards of governors do not take short- or medium-term decisions at the expense of long-term priorities. It may be necessary, at times, to earmark budgets to ensure that specific initiatives are delivered; however, that should be the exception and not the rule.
Another facet of the review of public administration is the establishment of an education and skills authority. The authority will streamline the administration of education, and is expected to release an additional £20 million annually to spend on the direct delivery of services in schools. I look forward to the implementation of the review of public administration.
Departmental budgets for next year will be determined by the Executive and the Assembly during the Budget process, which is planned for autumn 2008. The overall resources available for the North for the next two years have been determined by the Treasury as part of the 2008-2011 comprehensive spending review. The scope for additional resources, therefore, is likely to be limited for all Departments. Nevertheless, I will continue to press for more resources for education at every opportunity, and I look forward to Members’ support for my efforts. I hope that when the Budget is debated, everyone who spoke so passionately here today will be equally supportive of my call for more resources for education.
Recently, I launched the revised literacy and numeracy strategy for consultation. To give all young people the best opportunity to succeed in life and in work, we must all carefully consider the teaching and learning of reading, writing and mathematics. We must set out for teachers, schools, education and support bodies, parents and young people how we think every child can be given a fair chance.
I thank Members for tabling the debate. Primary schools have made their case for additional funding very well through their representations. I say to them, Maith sibh!, well done, keep it up; we need to hear your voices. I am committed to ensuring that the balance of funding for primary schools reflects their fundamental role in building educational foundations, tackling the cycle of deprivation, and equipping all learners with the skills and knowledge that they need.
The motion calls for an urgent examination of issues and proposals that would significantly increase funding in primary schools. Changes are unavoidably constrained by the need to ensure that children are properly supported at all stages.
Tacóidh an t-athbhreithniú ar mhaoiniú le cinntí agus le socruithe maoinithe sa todhchaí. Tá súil agam gur mhínigh mé na céimeanna atá mé a ghlacadh le maoiniú don luath-fhoghlaim a mhéadú taobh istigh de na hacmhainní atá ar fáil dom.
The work on taking forward a review of funding will help to support future decisions and funding arrangements. I hope that I have explained the steps that I am taking to increase funding for early learning with the resources that are available to me. I am sure that as we move forward, Members will join with me in seeking to secure the maximum funding possible for all education services.
Go raibh míle maith agat. Beidh mé ag dréim le tacaíocht ó gach Comhalta. Thank you very much for all your support; I look forward to working with you in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá an-áthas orm achoimriú a dhéanamh ar an díospóireacht, chan amháin ar mo shon féin ach ar son an Choiste Oideachais. Gan amhras ar bith bhí díospóireacht shuimiúil spéisiúl againn inniu, agus tá ard-áthas orm orm bhfuair an oiread sin daoine seans labhairt uirthi. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cheann Comhairle as sin.
I declare an interest as a governor of an Irish-medium primary school. I thank the Members who participated in the debate today, which was extremely lively at times.
I am glad that so many Members were afforded the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I welcome members of the Northern Ireland Primary Principals’ Action Group. Mr Basil McCrea and I met them at their conference in Cookstown, and we jointly sponsored their visit to the Long Gallery. I am glad that the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, other Committee members, Mr McElduff and I had the chance to address the group that day.
I will outline the per annum funding figures: primary-school pupils attract £2,045; secondary-school pupils in years 8 to 12 attract £3,302; and sixth-form pupils attract over £5,000. From my examination of the issues, I concluded that there are five main reasons that secondary-school pupils attract more funding than those at primary school: secondary schools require smaller classes for certain subjects; teachers are afforded preparation, planning and assessment time; some subjects require specialist accommodation; pupils require specialist equipment for certain subjects; and elements of the curriculum require specialist support staff. The same five reasons apply to the even higher funding that is attracted by sixth-form pupils.
Why do primary-school pupils attract only £2,045 per annum? The five reasons for that are: pupils are taught in large classes; their teachers are not allocated 10% of their time for preparation, planning and assessment; the schools do not have the necessary specialist accommodation that many parts of the curriculum require; there is none of the specialist equipment that is needed to implement the revised curriculum; and primary schools do not have the specialist support staff who are required for many subjects, including IT.
I agree with the Minister that funding education should not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. However, one cannot help thinking that the secondary sector is better off and that the primary sector is its poor relation. It is ironic that pupils who stay on at school beyond the statutory school-leaving age attract twice the amount of funding per capita as those in the early stages of their education. Surely that demonstrates where priorities lie — and they are not in the primary sector.
The Minister has told the House time and time again, and it has been reiterated in the debate, that early intervention is educationally and economically beneficial. However, the funding of the education system does not reflect those truths. Mr Kennedy reminded the Assembly that, in late 2007, the Nobel laureate economist James Heckman told us in Belfast that investment in policies that result in early intervention has a high rate of return, whereas social policies that mean intervention in later stages of the cycle result in a low economic return. Investment in primary education is, therefore, the best form of early intervention.
Primary-school principals are not asking for better treatment than their secondary-school colleagues; they want a level playing field so that primary-school pupils and their teachers have equality with their respective counterparts at secondary level, and they want that level playing field to extend to other geographical areas.
I thank members of the Assembly’s Committee for Education, who accepted the motion that I put to them and that is being debated.
I would have preferred the motion to have had more teeth, but, to ensure all-party support, I agreed to a wording that was not so strong. I am also grateful to the Committee for Education for agreeing to launch an inquiry into the funding of primary education in the new Assembly session.
I return to the debate and to the themes that Members have outlined. The Chairperson of the Education Committee, Mr Storey, and Ken Robinson spoke of the AWPU. The increase from 1·02 to 1·04 in 2008-09 worked out at £102 per pupil. That increase was immed­iately absorbed by inflationary price rises, leaving only enough money to buy 20 minutes per day of a classroom assistant’s time. The Chairperson of the Committee gave the House an assurance that the Committee would scrutinise the review of the funding formula.
Mr O’Dowd said that this debate marked the start of a process, and he welcomed all-party support for the motion. He cautioned against an increase in the AWPU — he believed that that might prove dangerous for smaller schools. However, he agreed that the funding formula should be reviewed.
Basil McCrea emphasised that educational underachievement begins in early life. Other Members, including Mr McCausland, Mr Ross and Mr Poots, agreed and — in common with the Minister and me — advocated early intervention.
Other Members, including Mr Lunn and Mr Basil McCrea, considered that there were too many initiatives and that there should be more core funding. The Department of Education accepts that the differentials are historical. Every party agrees that that situation should be addressed. Basil McCrea said that if nothing were done, the status quo would remain. He considered that we have a very good curriculum, but not the resources to deliver it.
Mary Bradley referred to a primary school in her constituency, and the effects of underfunding on it. She said that no additional classroom assistants will be provided for children with learning difficulties and a special-educational-needs support teacher has been made redundant.
Michelle McIlveen and Jonathan Craig referred to the high levels of stress in modern teaching and emphasised the need to address that problem. They also observed that some schools were relying on fund-raising by parent-teacher associations to compensate for underfunding.
Mr McElduff berated the SDLP for voting against the Budget. However, at the time, we warned the Minister that she had not costed her reforms and that they were not in the Programme for Government. I notice that, in her latest statement, on area-based planning, the Minister now agrees with us and is seeking more funding for her reforms. I am glad that she has come round to our way of thinking.
The Minister’s party colleague Martina Anderson provided a fine eulogy of the Minister during a recent apparition in Derry. I was tempted on that occasion to call the Minister “blessed Caitríona of Crossmolina”.
I am glad that we have achieved such a strong degree of agreement on the motion, to which I add my support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to urgently examine measures and bring forward proposals which would significantly increase funding to primary schools.

Basil McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The time that was allotted for the debate was two and a half hours. I made a representation to you to the effect that Members should have longer to speak. Will you bring that matter to the attention of the Business Committee so that Members who wish to speak for longer, or who wish to speak a second time, can do so?

John O'Dowd: I thought yours was long.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am content to refer to the Business Committee the issue of the length of speaking time that is allocated to Members during debates.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Further to that point of order, it may be worthwhile to examine the Hansard report of the debate to see how often Members repeated the same point ad infinitum. It was a very predictable and boring discussion — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is, as always, the cut and thrust of debate — [Interruption.]

Dominic Bradley: Further to that point of order, Mitchel McLaughlin was not here for most of the debate. I do not see how he is in a position to pass judgement on it. [Laughter.]

Mervyn Storey: He only heard the Minister.

Mitchel McLaughlin: I was watching it on television.

Mr Speaker: Order. As regards Basil McCrea’s point of order, and from the point of view of the Business Committee, all party Whips agree time limits for Members who wish to speak in debates. For the preceding debate those times were 10 minutes for the proposer, 10 minutes for the winding-up speech, 25 minutes for the Minister and five minutes for every other Member. Members should be clear on that issue.

Basil McCrea: Further to my point of order, I accept the Speaker’s explanation. However, perhaps the Business Committee when considering the matter will take as its primacy that every Member who wants to speak should be allowed to speak first and that if time remains, perhaps another way could be found.

Mr Speaker: I would ask that the Member also refers those remarks to his party Whip.

Report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development into Renewable Energy and Alternative Land Use

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

William McCrea: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (39/07/08R) into Renewable Energy and Alternative Land Use.
I apologise to Members for the slight delay in the delivery of the report. The Committee unanimously approved the report at its meeting on Tuesday 24 June and it must be said —

Sean Neeson: On a point of order, is it in order for the debate to take place today? On 30 January, the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development wrote to the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and gave assurances that members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment would have a week to consider the report’s recommendations. That did not happen. Therefore, is it in order that the debate should proceed today?

Mr Speaker: All items of business on the Order Paper are in order. Perhaps, the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development would like to address the point made by the Member?

William McCrea: The Member is a former Deputy Speaker of the House and should know how the business of the House operates. When a matter of business is on the Order Paper, it is in order.
When he made his point of order, I was in the midst of apologising to Members, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for the delay in getting the report to them. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development — which is representative of the vast majority of Members in the House at the moment — passed the report on 24 June. The Printed Paper Office did an excellent job in getting the report to the Committee Office by the following Thursday. Unfortunately, the Committee was on a visit arranged and hosted by the Department on that day and it was not until the following day — 27 June — that the Committee Office was able to process and deliver the report.
The Committee could have delayed the report, but there is a tremendous pressure out there, and for the Committee to allow the report to sit in abeyance until after the summer recess would not be fitting, and I do not think that any Member of this House would want the report to be sitting, collecting dust. We want action on the issue rather than standing on some little piece of ceremony. I apologise, and I assure the House that there was no discourtesy meant.
Today, we are dealing with issues that are relevant to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I am sure that there are many issues that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment will be able to take up, and I would be happy for the Department to take those on board.
Surely, Members are mature enough to realise that there is a tremendous need in the community for renewable energy. Rather than standing on ceremony, we should ensure that we take those needs seriously.
That is, unless we want to play a game that allows the report to sit in abeyance for the next two months, until we return and find time to reschedule it for debate. That is not what people want. I urge the honourable Member to think seriously before he suggests that we go down that road.
I have apologised on behalf of the Committee. Mr Neeson may hold up as many papers as he wants, but I am telling him exactly how it is. I would be delighted if the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, of which he is a member, were to takes its own action on renewable energy, at the same time as the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development fulfils its responsibilities and pursues its course.
My Committee tried to keep the matter completely within the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, for which we are responsible. The Committee has no wish to stray into the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s territory. I also put on record my apology to the Minister —

Jennifer McCann: Will the Member give way?

William McCrea: No, I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, and I want to deal with the issues. If the Member wants to speak, I am sure that she will catch your eye, Mr Speaker. That is a possibility if her party Whip has put forward her name to speak in the debate.
Mr Speaker, I am honoured to present the first report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to the House for Members’ approval.
The Committee’s inquiry was conducted against a background of low incomes in the farming sector, increased feed costs and pressure from Europe to comply with nitrates directives. Those are serious issues that fall within our remit, as the scrutiny Committee for the Department.
The Committee believed that practical solutions, evident in most other European countries, would already have been packaged and set for delivery. As the inquiry progressed, energy needs and the rising cost of meeting consumer demand were seldom out of the news headlines.
The Committee found that solutions existed, that they were available, and — importantly — that they were working. Unfortunately, those solutions were in other European countries, while Northern Ireland waited for them to be packaged.
I will not criticise Departments for the sake of doing so — I am simply reporting what the Committee found out during its deliberations. The Committee was deliberate in linking most of the recommendations in its report to the comments of individuals and organisations that provided it with evidence. However, as part of Govern­ment, we have a duty to apply constructive criticism when applicable, and to respond in an appropriate, positive manner.
Members are aware that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has the lead role on energy issues. The Committee took time to ensure that the inquiry’s terms of reference precisely and clearly addressed renewable-energy matters in a rural context. The majority of the Committee’s questions explored how macro-energy solutions could be applied to the rural environment and to rural communities.
However, the Committee was told that renewable energy is a legitimate concern for many Assembly Committees and must not be regarded as the exclusive preserve of either the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment or the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.
Several of the report’s recommendations call on the Executive to take collective action. The most important of those is the recommendation to use public-sector procurement to create a market demand for the use of biomass as an energy source. No Department on its own can achieve that. Central Government must create the market certainty that is required to encourage farmers to invest their time, land and money. I am certain that the agricultural sector will respond to that level of support.
Unfortunately, the lack of progress is frustrating stakeholders and some Committee members. They believe that Northern Ireland remains behind its counterparts in Europe. I have already stated that we based the report purely on evidence that was presented to the Committee. That evidence included 26 written submissions, four of which were from Departments or Government bodies.
The Committee called in witnesses from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and it was extremely disappointed to learn of delays in key strategic reports.
I will depart slightly from my earlier statement about levelling criticism.
Some criticism must be directed at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
The Committee was genuinely keen to learn about the actions deriving from the renewable energy action plan and, equally, from the agrifood waste challenge fund. Therefore, it was with great disappointment that the Committee learned that little progress had been made on the action plan. The Committee acknowledged the excellent research being undertaken at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise and by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. Indeed, the Committee recommends that, using whatever resources are necessary, research should continue, particularly the on-farm anaerobic digestion trials and the research on whether anaerobic digestion might be another means of complying with the nitrates directives.
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development establish a virtual centre of renewable energy excellence to capture the benefits of the work being undertaken in Northern Ireland and to introduce best practice in the rural context. That could also include a non-food crop centre for Northern Ireland to link research to production and to the market.
However, there remains a need to progress beyond research and into action. That action can be incorporated in, and provide value to, rural communities. It is genuinely unfortunate that the Department has not provided the Committee with evidence that those actions will be implemented in the long term. We must move beyond the research stage, and the Committee will support any bid for additional funding that the Department might make to ensure that there is movement on the matter. I could raise many other issues but I realise that time is going by quickly.
I genuinely believe that the Committee has taken a very balanced approach throughout its preparation of the report, and members have been privileged to have received evidence from several very knowledgeable individuals and organisations. Indeed, we are still receiving submissions to the inquiry, which the Committee will continue to consider as part of the normal Committee sessions. We are indebted to all who have taken a keen interest in the Committee’s work, and we applaud them for their role in the report.
I wish to put on record our thanks to our special advisor to the Committee, the Committee researcher, the Hansard staff and the doorkeepers for their help during the inquiry as well as the Committee staff. I commend the report to the House and I trust that we will have its full backing.

Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I commend the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for presenting the report into renewable energy and alternative land use.
I will quote from the section of the report relating to market certainty, which says:
“Rural businesses need more certainty of the market if they are to invest in the bio-energy sector; lack of confidence in the supply chair is a major barrier in the renewable energy sector. Farmers’ long-term commitment to energy crops needs the support of secure market demand.”
The recommendation in that section reads:
“Public sector procurement should favour biomass heating solutions, helping to create the market demand to stimulate the industry. Such a commitment would be aligned with the Government’s climate change and sustainable development objectives.”
Confidence and secure market demand are key to developing the whole sector. The question is how to secure market confidence and create a secure market demand. At this point, a huge onus lies on the Executive, as the collective body, to produce a working group spanning all sectors. For example, can heating systems be provided in new houses that will draw energy from agriculture? Other sectors must also be considered. However, although this is a good, solid report, if we do not get market certainty it will sit on the shelf and gather dust.
Confidence and market certainty are required. The only way to achieve them is if the relevant Minister — Michelle Gildernew in this case — works with the Committee, raises the issue in the Executive and tries to establish a working group across the various sectors, from which a basic action plan to develop the sector will emerge.

George Savage: I support the motion. In 2005, the total greenhouse-gas emissions in Northern Ireland were 5·5% below the levels in 1990. However, there was a 15·8% reduction on 1990 emissions of greenhouse gases in the UK overall. Northern Ireland’s performance in response to climate change can be improved, and the report offers constructive proposals for the use of renewable energy. In addition, we face unprecedented rises in energy costs and emerging energy security issues. Renewable energy and alternative land use can play a crucial role in the future of energy provision in Northern Ireland and the UK. It can also offer business and diversification opportunities to the rural community.
I will examine the section of the report entitled “Opportunities for Farms and Rural Businesses”. I concur with the Committee’s findings that:
“there was a lack of focus on the opportunities for family farms and rural businesses in the development of renewable energy with most of the attention, investment and fiscal support being for large-scale wind developments.”
I agree that:
“The Executive should increase the use of biomass as an energy source, introducing a hierarchy of its use. There is widespread agreement that the best use of biomass is for heating, replacing fossil fuels. Below that in the hierarchy comes electricity generation and finally liquid biofuels, the least carbon-efficient use of biomass.”
It is also clear that:
“Rural businesses need more certainty of the market if they are to invest in the bio-energy sector; lack of confidence in the supply chain is a major barrier in the renewable energy sector.”
The long-term commitment of farmers and small businesses to renewables requires the support of Government and the development of a secure market. With that in mind:
“Public sector procurement should favour biomass heating solutions, helping to create the market demand to stimulate the industry. Such a commitment would be aligned with the Government’s climate change and sustainable development objectives.”
Many technologies are fledgling, and it may be years before commercial application is taken up by many small businesses. However:
“There is much of value on which to build — some world-class research at the universities and at AFBI, a range of commercial companies investing in the sector here and a budding demand for some of the technologies …
The Department for Agriculture and Rural Development should establish a (virtual) Centre of Renewable Energy Excellence to capture the benefits of the work being undertaken in Northern Ireland and to introduce best practice within a rural context.”
The report makes reasonable and considered recommendations that promote the use of renewable energy sources in Northern Ireland. The Committee’s most significant conclusion was that DARD and DETI could be more proactive in providing the necessary research and funding for — and implementation of — their relevant strategies, because they are having a detrimental effect on the potential renewables industry.
The report recognises the importance of Government support and subsidies for the fledgling field, much as it was to the development of wind power in the 1990s. That includes support for technological development and the creation of some market certainty for the initial stages of market development through initiatives such as the establishment of public procurement for biomass heat and electricity.
However, it is worth considering some of the wider issues that surround the potential agricultural and environmental effects of renewable energy and alternative land use.
Wider debates are going on about the effect that biofuel production could have on food costs, production and biodiversity. Such debates are important, and we must continue to examine whether the global aggregate environmental and humanitarian costs of biomass, especially biofuels, are greater than the climate change and economic benefits.

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is almost up.

George Savage: Although Northern Ireland has been intensively farmed, there are large areas of grazing land that provide many opportunities.

P J Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to comment on the report. Although I support the motion, I wish to place on the record my views about renewable energies, which I accept will not necessarily be fully shared by all who contributed to the report. I said previously that some may think that such views place me out on a limb.
I have studied in reasonable detail many differing views and opinions on the subject of biofuels, and I have noted that some commentators have concerns about the content of the gas that is produced when biofuels are burned. One biomass expert claimed that when biofuels burn in an engine, the combustion gases that are produced are carcinogenic and over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That is why I stated that I was disappointed that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not avail itself of the opportunity to make a submission to the inquiry. However, as we heard from the Chairman, it may yet be on its way — the Committee is still receiving submissions. One day, the views of health departments around the globe may well determine the future thinking on the burning of biofuels.
I also urge caution to those who promote the use of our best agricultural land for biofuel crops. It is rather short-sighted to relegate prime farmland to growing products that we know little about. Questions must be asked about whether there is any long-term damage to topsoil when biofuels are grown. If that were to be the case, how many generations would it take for the soil to recover its former food-producing qualities?
It is such questions that force me to qualify my support for the alternative use of land and the growing of energy crops. Therefore, I suggest to those who may be listening seriously to the debate that only the abundant poor-quality land across Northern Ireland and the areas that are not best suited to producing good food should be used to grow biofuel crops.
There is, as the report claims, enormous potential to participate in the renewable-energy sector. However, that should not be at a price; prime farmland must be safeguarded. I know that by saying that I am somewhat ruling out the growing of rapeseed and other oil-bearing crops, but so be it.
It is an established fact that on the island of Ireland we grow the best grass and root crops in Europe, and high-quality grain crops. Why, at a time of great hunger throughout the world, should we give up doing what we do best, which is producing high-quality, healthy food?
I refer to world hunger, and I contend that it would be foolish to think that food problems are confined to locations many tens of thousands of miles away. Our dependence on imported food is so great that contingency arrangements must be put in place for the day when the inward supply of food may not be so plentiful.
It should also be noted that the prime reason for the significant increase in food prices in recent times is the shortage of land for food production. In a joint statement issued in early July 2007, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development warned that:
“Increased demand for bio-fuels is causing fundamental changes to agricultural markets that could drive up world prices for many farm products.”
Within six months to a year, those predictions have already become a reality.
If the inward supply of food were to cease tomorrow for whatever reason, in Northern Ireland we have enough food on supermarket shelves and in storage to feed people for five to six days. If we have no home-produced food to rely on, that could become a problem.
I accept that, should we develop the use of biomass as an energy source — even from less-favoured land — its best use would be for heating purposes. I doubt whether electricity generation or liquid biofuels will ever emerge as the answer to what we are hoping to achieve in deriving energy from the renewable sector.
I support the call to devise and develop the use of alternative energy, which might help to reduce our dependence on oil and natural gas, and, in keeping with my earlier comments on the protection of prime farmland, I believe that alternatives can be found.
The utilisation of wind energy, although not necessarily a new discovery, is the most natural alternative available. Anaerobic digestion is another source worthy of thorough investigation. The principle is sound, but is the viability in keeping with the principle?
In mid-May, the Committee, as Members heard, visited the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute at Hillsborough. We saw at first hand the excellent experimental work carried out on anaerobic digestion. It was disappointing to learn that the Department’s action plan had not progressed in the first 15 months of its existence.
It is important that DARD ensures that no financial restrictions are placed on funding the work carried out at Hillsborough, as anaerobic digestion might one day allow many farming families —

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member give way?

P J Bradley: I am sorry but the time in which I have to speak is almost up.
Anaerobic digestion might one day allow many farming families to join the plans to deliver alternative sources of energy.

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is almost up.

P J Bradley: I support the motion, albeit with a health warning.

David Ford: I am certainly the first — and perhaps will be the last — Member to speak in this debate who did not help to write the report.
In that context, I do not intend to engage in the spat between representatives from the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development who raised the issue. However, it is important that this topic is debated; it should not sit on the shelf. It is something with which every Member of the Assembly should be seen to be engaged.
When the Chairperson began the debate he talked about the need for action, which Mr Doherty supported. It is regrettable to read in the report that the Department’s so-called action plan has sat for 15 months without any action being taken, which P J Bradley highlighted. If I were not running the risk of being accused of acting as opposition for opposition’s sake — although some Members here doubtless do that — I would say that unfortunately that is too often the case.
Departments have action plan after action plan. All kinds of wonderful recommendations are put down on paper, but sometimes we are not particularly good at putting those into practice. There is a lesson there for each of us. As the Chairperson said at the start of the debate, the Committee represents nearly every section of the Assembly. In fact, it is representative of the four Executive parties, and I trust that all members of the Committee will lobby their Ministers for some kind of movement forward, because this is an issue that requires a joined-up approach.
The issue does not just involve DETI, which is responsible for energy and the electricity-transmission infrastructure. Yesterday, during questions to the Minister for Social Development, the potential for alternative fuels to be used in social housing to deal with fuel poverty was highlighted.
DOE has major issues about, in particular, the Planning Service and its environmental responsibilities, and yet it did not have any input into this particular report. The report makes reference to building regulations, which have been held back by DFP. Some of us hold the opinion that unfortunately certain potential building regulations have not been carried through.
OFMDFM has an overarching relationship with almost everything, but has particular responsibility for sustainable development. However, we are far off being able to meet the targets for renewable energy that we are obligated to under European, international and UK agreements. Real issues exist, which must be examined to see what needs to be done.
P J Bradley spoke of the role of DHSSPS, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with his comments in that respect. Some points, however, can be highlighted from outside regarding the Committee’s report: in particular, the recommendation that there should be a hierarchy in the use of biomass. Will the Member who is to make the winding-up speech in this debate consider the use of more innovative thinking in looking at opportunities to develop combined heat and power on a domestic scale? We are not meeting those needs by saying that electricity comes after space heating. Otherwise it appears that the report is merely catching up with other people rather than using the unique opportunities of tidal power, which I may not be allowed to mention, and wind power, and the possibilities for growing willow and miscanthsus as biomass. Northern Ireland should not be catching up with other countries; it should be innovating compared with other countries.
That ties in with the issue highlighted in the report’s recommendation that refers to the Executive’s risk aversion. Unfortunately, that seems to be a byword for the culture here; we are generally risk averse. It would be good to see a few failures because DARD had encouraged people to innovate. At present, it seems that DARD and other Departments are entirely risk averse and only a small number of entrepreneurs are taking risks and setting lessons for all of us.
The issues of anaerobic digestion are similar. I know that such work is currently under way at Hillsborough, but work on anaerobic digestion was done 20 years ago in a Portglenone monastery. We have not really moved a great deal — why not, after we faced the problems of the nitrates directive? To be parochial, in South Antrim, we might solve some of the problems of incinerating poultry litter if there were more anaerobic digestion.
We should praise the efforts that are being made by groups such as Balcas in respect of wood pellets and rural generation; and the use of willow, particularly for remediation. We should, however, also face up to the fact that progress on wind energy is being held up by PPS 18. There are genuine issues of land quality and how we should encourage the appropriate growing of crops. Moreover, we should recognise the recent report by Action Renewables, which demonstrated the potential for 400 jobs in the long term in the field of alternative energy production.

William Irwin: I welcome the Committee’s report, and I declare an interest as a farmer.
To the average farmer, the idea of renewable energy and alternative uses of land firmly remains a secondary option. For a number of years, farmers in Northern Ireland have been under considerable strain. We need to be cautious about championing the benefits of renewable energy when the Assembly could do much more to assist farmers in ways that would yield much more stabilising results.
In some cases, harnessing renewable energy requires a fairly large outlay of cash. In many cases, such finance is not readily available to farmers. Under recent programmes, the use of grant aid has been welcome. However, even with the assistance of such aid, a large contribution has been required from the farmer.
In some cases, farmers have been unable to use wind turbines due to units failing or blades working loose and flying across farmyards. Those types of stories, and the difficult situations in which farmers find themselves — when turbines cannot be used, or when the farmer’s money is tied up — do not paint the perfect picture of renewable energy. I want an assurance from the Minister that the Department will do all in its power to help farmers to address those issues, which the Department has a moral duty to do.
Northern Ireland almost entirely relies on imported energy supplies such as oil, coal and electricity. Therefore, we have little control over the cost of energy. In recent months, world energy prices have risen sharply, and everyone is feeling the effects of that.
As the report points out, the development of renewable energy is in its infancy. A great deal of work remains to be done in order to encourage more rural businesses to consider using a source of renewable energy. The renewable energy action plan must become the renewed focus of the Department. More importantly, rural businesses should be made fully aware of the funding options that are available to them. I welcome the report.

Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the report. An important stage has been reached in respect of energy and in dealing with farm waste. The report details how we should implement a plan that will get the best from the energy that is available and how we capture it, particularly when it comes to crops and biomass.
As is already the case in many countries, such measures should be combined with waste-management structures. If such a system were put in place, it could deal with both farm waste and municipal waste. In some circumstances, one system can be combined with the other.
We recently held a debate on the issue of chicken litter. That matter could be dealt with by a combined system that could deal with the waste and produce energy from it in a way that could be managed.
People have concerns about anaerobic digestion and incineration. Those concerns are rightly held, but there are means of modern technology that could deal with the mechanical biological treatment of waste, gasification and anaerobic digestion. Once a package is put together, there will be a mechanism that could deal with farm waste and municipal waste at the same time.
The benefits of producing crops to coincide with that system, and using the maximum amount of available resources, in order to provide a solution should be a cross-departmental challenge. The issue is not entirely one for DARD, nor DETI.
Several Departments can come together to ensure that we find practical ways of dealing with the situation. Our situation may be unique, but we can learn from the experiences of other countries — some of which have been well researched in the past few years — to ensure that we have a means of capturing energy and turning it into resources or fuel for the future. The report is important and the Assembly must take it on board.
This morning, I talked to a gentleman from Sweden about waste and waste management. He asked me what our plans were to develop energy from waste and how we were preparing to deal with the energy needs of the future. I had to tell him that we had no direct plan in place. He found it very strange that we had no overall strategy for dealing with energy and waste, considering the present fuel crisis and the problems associated with European directives to deal with waste and waste on farms.
The process is at an important stage, so we do not have time to sit back and let the matter rest on the shelf. Action must be taken across Departments and the Executive must make decisions. It is unfortunate that this Executive does not have the Executive programme funds of the previous Executive, which would have ensured that the matter was driven and resources were available. However, we must ensure that benefits can be gained from energy already on our farms to benefit our farmers and to clean up the environment.

Allan Bresland: I support the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development into renewable energy and alternative land use. The Committee sought to explore the potential economic benefits that Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry and rural businesses could gain from renewable energy and alternative land use.
Northern Ireland farmers have always sought to provide high-quality food, and they are internationally renowned for excelling in breeding high-quality pigs, sheep and beef and dairy cattle, and for growing world-class grasses, clovers, grains and potatoes. The main aim of our farmers has been to produce top-quality, healthy food and, regrettably, the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland has not been receiving its fair share of economic return. Many farmers have left the industry while others have diversified or sought alternative employment in order to maintain incomes for their families.
Recently, we have heard much about a possible world shortage of food. Farmers in Northern Ireland are not paid enough and continue to be choked with red tape, neither of which encourages the farming community to maximise its food-producing potential. Recent farm-gate price increases have been wiped out by the increasing cost of inputs, many of which are due to the continual increase in the demand for oil.
It is in that climate, along with new opportunities from the Northern Ireland rural development programme, that farmers are looking at the opportunities offered through renewable energy. The Assembly recently debated a motion on fuel costs and the effect of fuel poverty, and it was clear that we have little control over fuel costs beyond energy efficiency and the possibility of supporting renewable energy programmes.
The report highlights the need for a joined-up approach by several Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department for Social Development and, as regards planning policy, the Department of the Environment.
I take this opportunity to highlight one of the recommendations that supports the concept of a centre for renewable energy excellence. Many farmers benefited from the Peace II-funded Focus Farms Programme, which provided farmers in Northern Ireland with a resource that enabled them to learn at first hand new ideas, the impact of research and how such ideas affected working farms. That centre of excellence could give the opportunity farmers to learn at first hand the processes and pitfalls of any new direction for our farming community.
Such support also requires adequate and effective research that provides the industry with the information that is necessary to make choices. The need for such research has been highlighted in the report, especially that concerning anaerobic digestion and the benefits that the nitrates directive offers.
I am confident that the farming community will see the opportunities that renewable energy can create. I hope that Departments will also respond positively to the opportunities that are outlined in the report.

Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Committee’s timely report into renewable energy and alternative land use, especially given the continued escalation of energy prices, which have an impact on us all.
The Committee has carried out a very valuable piece of work. However, I received the report only last Friday afternoon; I got sight of it only on Monday; and I have not had sufficient time to consider its recommendations in detail. That said, I intend to issue a detailed response to the Committee in due course.
I note that the Committee acknowledges that the bioenergy report that was commissioned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and that will be available in several weeks will have a bearing on its own report. I also await the bioenergy report with interest. It, along with the Committee’s report, will inform the development of a cross-departmental strategic approach to bioenergy. The DETI report in particular will assist in informing the rural community of the potential market opportunities that exist here in the North. My officials have been working closely with DETI to ensure that the interests of the land-based sector are considered fully.
Bioenergy is unique in that it can make a contribution to the three main energy markets — electricity, heat, and transport — all of which are important for family farm and rural businesses. It is also very important to ensure that bioenergy resources are deployed in the best possible way to optimise feed-stock uses and to give the best energy and carbon-reduction outcomes. The very challenging EU and public service agreement renewable energy targets are also rightly prominent in the Committee’s report, and the response to the current consultation on the renewable energy strategy will also be key in developing a road map to address those targets. I note the Committee’s comments of a strategic nature, and, in particular, I and my ministerial colleagues will wish to ensure alignment of departmental policies.
Turning to what my Department has done to date, the implementation of the 35 recommendations of the renewable energy action plan has provided a positive start. Perhaps more consideration could have been given to the work that officials have carried out in briefing the Committee on that action plan and on what has happened.
I will mention some of the other things that have been done. Training and awareness of renewable energy technologies has been provided to over 1,500 farmers. The well-attended renewables open day at the Loughry campus of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) last August, which I attended, was successful in communicating new technologies. That work continues at CAFRE in collaboration with the Carbon Trust and the Farm Energy Centre at Stoneleigh in England to develop a range of industry benchmarks that are aimed at delivering energy efficiencies at farm level.
Additionally, training for installers of renewable energy technologies has also been funded under the INTERREG programme. The NIRDP in particular has implemented several measures that will help to further develop land-based renewable energy systems. Those measures include: the introduction of processing and marketing grants in the forestry sector; modernisation of agriculture holdings via biomass boilers and solar panels; support for short-rotation coppice; diversification; and business creation and development.
Case-study work from the wind-powered turbines that have been installed on the CAFRE estate will also provide much-needed information on operational issues. Work is also under way to assist the development of energy supply chains through demonstration of best practice through, for example, our focus farms and in the forestry sector.
A range of research programmes that have been sponsored by my Department are currently underway at AFBI in collaboration with other research centres. Miscanthus, which is an additional potential energy crop, is being evaluated, and at this stage yields look promising.
AFBI is also hosting an international conference and exhibition on renewable energy at the end of October to explore the local contribution that can be made to renewable energy targets. I am sure that the Committee will be interested in hearing about that conference and in perhaps attending it, so I would welcome the Committee’s interest.
Biomass boilers at the CAFRE and AFBI sites will be used to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of biomass systems for heat production in the rural community and the supply chains that are needed. There must be a sustainable procurement strategy. The supply of biomass in the North is finite; at present, some is brought across from Scotland. It must, therefore, be ensured that supply can meet demand. An on-farm anaerobic digester is also being trialled at AFBI Hillsborough. Innovation fund bids have been secured for research and development of anaerobic digestion in the local context.
On my appointment as Minister, I inherited the renewable energy action plan, which included a proposed challenge fund. In late 2007, I established a renewable energy policy unit. The Department has secured national and matching EU funds, which are available from 1 April 2009. At present, therefore, that money is not available. I am currently reassessing needs in the current climate in order to target any capital intervention for the best possible return and to ensure that sustainable technologies are identified.
The Committee report has come at a time when several reports, which include the all-Ireland grid study, are to hand. During the coming weeks and months, it is important that all reports are fully considered in order to achieve a coherent framework. To assist that, I am currently establishing a stakeholder-led group to ensure that my Department’s renewables action plan is reviewed and refreshed and that available support is effectively targeted at sustainable actions that contribute to targets for energy from renewable sources. Comple­mentarity with existing work and reports will be a key objective of the group. My Department and its agencies have made a constructive start in building infrastructure and conducting research that will provide an important expertise base and will instil confidence in people to invest in the future.
I also recognise the importance of supporting policies that drive opportunities for renewable energy production and utilisation in an efficient, sustainable and balanced way, particularly for the rural community. I am keen to ensure that renewable energy policies are aligned across Government and are implemented in an integrated manner. I hope that Committee members will realise that renewable energy will demand long-term sustainable approaches and robust economic evaluations.
I agree with most of the Members’ contributions. For example, I support comments on the balance of the food-versus-fuel debate and on the need to consider all forms of renewable energy, such as wind and wave energy. However, in saying that, the escalating price of energy is unlikely to recede. The challenge is on everyone to meet energy needs from more than just traditional sources. It is important that I make the point that I want farmers to be at the centre of appropriate business-led responses and for them to take a lead role in the exploitation and maximisation of the benefits of renewable energy.
As I said at the outset, I will respond in detail to the report within the eight weeks that is stipulated in the procedures of the House. I welcome the debate and the work that has been carried out. A joined-up partnership approach is needed in order to find long-term sustainable solutions to the substantial problem.

Willie Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I apologise that I was late for the debate; I had to lead a delegation to meet the Minister for Regional Development in order to discuss sewerage problems in Newcastle. I have waited a long time for the meeting, so I could not give it up.
I thank the Minister and Members for their contributions to the debate. As was stated at the outset, the debate’s subject matter is not reserved to any one Committee or Member. The variety of contributions that were made in the debate supports the Committee’s viewpoint.
Go raibh maith agat. In making my winding-up speech, I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time. However, I want to comment on one or two matters. I certainly do not intend to recount every point that has been made in the Chamber. The Committee seeks the House’s approval of its report. I assure Members that we — I, in particular — will also examine Hansard in order to follow up on what has been said. The Committee will forward Members’ valid points to the relevant authorities, which is the proper action to take. Ultimately, all Members want the same outcomes. Committee members have done much work to bring the report to the House. It is important, therefore, that a way forward emerges from the report.
I will cover a few points from the debate. In response to the point of order, I apologise for not forwarding the report. As the Minister said, it is important that we all work in partnership and in a cohesive manner to move forward on the issue. The Committee will copy the report formally to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and we will welcome the response of that Committee.
The Committee agrees wholeheartedly with Mr Doherty; we will do all in our power to ensure that the report does not simply gather dust. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment invested a great deal of time in the report. We must endorse it, and we must not allow it to gather dust because that would not be acceptable to the community. Given the high cost of fuel, I urge everyone to act on the report.
I acknowledge PJ Bradley’s comments on biofuels, but the report states that biofuels are the least carbon-efficient type of biomass. The report does not suggest that the growth of commodities be stopped; it encourages the planned creation of demand. The Committee accepts Mr Ford’s comments on combined power and will put those points to the Department. Mr Irwin is correct to say that the recent coverage of wind turbines is not a good advertisement for those technologies.

Jim Shannon: Is the Member aware of the story that appeared in the press today that wind turbines, if established on the east coast of Northern Ireland, could supply enough power for the whole of Northern Ireland? Will the Member agree that more should be done to encourage diversification from farming into tourism? Last week I read that in Ballywalter a farmer who grows potatoes and keeps milk cows now has a quad track, a crazy golf course and a railway.

Willie Clarke: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Shannon. Diversification may not suit all farmers, but it is an option for some; it is an excellent way forward for rural development.
The Committee welcomes the Minister’s support for the report, and we look forward to receiving her detailed comments. The Committee is keen to move forward with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and with other Departments.
The report presents a massive opportunity for rural communities to develop renewable energy, and that opportunity must be grasped. The Executive must increase the use of biomass, which includes woodchip and wood pellets, and that is the one aspect to shine throughout the report.

Trevor Clarke: [Interruption.]

Willie Clarke: That is anaerobic digestion.

Trevor Clarke: No, it is not.

Willie Clarke: Each Minister must take on board some of the report’s recommendations. Schools must be considered. Today, a school with a wood-pellet heating system won an award for its environmental nature and became the first school in the North of Ireland to do so. That shows what is achievable and the way forward. Hospitals and Government buildings and the public sector must start to lead the way. The Department for Social Development could lead the way by moving towards the use of wood-pellet and biomass energy in its social housing stock. Communal heating systems for leisure centres, for example, and in all Government buildings should be considered.
The farming community could come together to provide such heating systems through woodchip and biomass boilers. Farmers need a guaranteed income for such projects; they must be able to enter a five-year plan or service agreement to build confidence in the rural community to take up such initiatives. Establishing a centre of excellence is a key recommendation and, if we wish to make progress, we must grasp that opportunity.
Hemp is a plant that must be considered seriously. Hemp has many, versatile uses — not the one of which Mitchel McLaughlin is thinking. [Laughter.] It is four times more viable than corn, and it can be used as a food supplement and as biomass. It grows widely and has already been planted in some areas in the North. Indeed, in my constituency, a house has been totally built from hemp, including the concrete and the building blocks.
The House is in agreement that embracing renewable forms of energy is the way forward. However, rural communities must be given confidence to buy into them, and Members must demonstrate leadership and have a plan to bring those communities with us.
The Committee thanks those people who took time to attend, and showed an interest in, its inquiry, and I hope that witnesses and stakeholders recognise the report in the positive light that it has been presented to the House today. I commend the report to the House, and I seek Members’ approval of it. Go raibh maith agat.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (39/07/08R) into Renewable Energy and Alternative Land Use.

Motions to Amend Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: The next 26 motions relate to amendments to Standing Orders, so I propose to conduct the debate as follows: I propose to group the motions, as shown on the separate sheet that has been provided for Members, and to conduct four debates. Debate will take place on all the motions in the relevant group. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Chairperson to move formally each of the remaining motions in the group in turn, and I will then put the Question on each motion without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.
The first group consists only of motion (a), as indicated on the Order Paper.

Lord Morrow: I beg to move
(a) In Standing Order 15, leave out paragraph (1) and insert -
“(1) Except as provided for in paragraphs (1A) and (1B), any amendment to a motion shall be given in writing to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. two clear Working Days before the day on which the motion is to be taken.
(1A) Any amendment to a motion to be debated on a day on which the Business Committee has arranged an additional sitting of the Assembly under Standing Order 10(6) shall, where the time between such decision of the Business Committee and the day of the additional sitting is less than two clear Working Days, be given to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. on the day of the additional sitting.
(1B) Any amendment to a motion to be debated on a day on which the Assembly is summoned to meet earlier than that to which it stood adjourned shall, where the time between the Speaker’s summons and the meeting to which the Speaker’s summons relates is less than two clear Working Days, be given to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. on the day on which the Assembly is summoned to meet.”
Standing Order 15 was reviewed at the Speaker’s request. The Speaker has only between 9.30 am and 12.00 noon on Mondays, and between 9.30 am and 10.30 am on Tuesdays, in which to assess proposed amendments to motions. Such assessments can take time, and it is unreasonable for either the Speaker or the Member who tabled the motion to rush that job. Given that amendments are often technical or legal in nature, it is therefore important that they be given due and proper consideration. The Committee considers that, perhaps at times, using the current arrangements, a rush job can ensue, and that may produce the wrong result.
The Committee on Procedures set about reviewing Standing Order 15 in the normal manner. It commissioned research on how the procedure works elsewhere, and, for Members who are interested, that research can be found on the Committee’s web pages. The Committee then consulted party Whips and the Business Committee to identify any problems that might arise if the period for tabling amendments were to be extended.
The Committee on Procedure’s consideration of the matter was greatly helped by the Business Committee’s decision to schedule business on a two-week basis.
Without that decision, it would have been very difficult to lengthen the time for tabling amendments. If it is agreed that amendments to motions should be tabled two working days in advance, there will be two consequential impacts on Standing Orders 10(6) and 11, which deal with additional plenary meetings called by the Business Committee and the Speaker under the conditions specified in the Standing Order. Those consequential amendments to Standing Orders 10(6) and 11 are shown as new paragraphs (1A) and (1B) in the motion. The renumbering of the paragraphs will be carried out as part of the annual summer reprint of Standing Orders. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Declan O'Loan: I support the motion to amend Standing Orders. As the Chairperson said, the proposal has been well tested through proper consultation with all relevant sections in the Assembly. It is fair and proper to the parties in that they will have proper time to consider any motion that is tabled. Members will have adequate time to consider the motion and table an amendment to it if they wish to do so; most importantly, there will also be adequate time for others to consider an amendment and their response to it. The Assembly should, therefore, welcome the motion.

David Ford: I regret that I cannot be as positive as Mr O’Loan. It is certainly not my wish to make life difficult for you, Mr Speaker, or the people in your office — he says in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Speaker. Issues would arise if several complicated or technical amendments were to appear before the Speaker at 9.25 am or 9.29 am on a Tuesday morning when there would be little time to consider them before the plenary sitting begins.
However, the motion would require that any amendment to a motion be submitted two full working days before the day on which the motion is to be taken. Thus, for a Monday Order Paper, amendments would have to be submitted by early Thursday morning. The Alliance Party feels that that significant period of notice could create difficulties in ensuring that amendments fit in well with the motion and can be properly considered.
I accept Lord Morrow’s point that the provisional Order Paper is published a week in advance, and that practice has made a difference. Nevertheless, the official Order Paper emerges at the Business Committee meeting only on Tuesday lunchtime. Members may be informally notified by Whips on Tuesday afternoon of its contents, but some Back-Benchers may not see the Order Paper until late Thursday morning when the time for tabling amendments has passed. Perhaps party discipline is such that Whips will ensure that each and every Member of their party is fully aware of what is going on. Lord Morrow is nodding, so clearly the DUP Whip is as efficient as the United Community Group’s Whip.
However, an issue arose last week that caused concern. My colleagues and I had tabled a motion on the situation in Zimbabwe. When the motion was originally submitted, it was entirely appropriate. Several weeks later, when the motion was considered by the Business Committee for the provisional Order Paper, it was still entirely appropriate. When the Order Paper was finalised at the Tuesday Business Committee meeting, it was entirely appropriate. On the Thursday morning — which, under the proposed amendment to Standing Order 15, would be the last time for submitting amendments — it was appropriate. Yet the situation in Zimbabwe changed over the weekend, and it was possible for our party to table an amendment that was accepted first thing on Monday morning — and we appreciated your indulgence in that matter, Mr Speaker. That amendment ensured that the debate that was held was relevant and appropriate.

Declan O'Loan: First, I want to address the Member’s more general points. Given that the proposal to amend this Standing Order has been before the Assembly for many months and that the Committee on Procedures has carried out a proper consultation on it, I am surprised that such a significant difficulty is being presented at this very late stage.
Secondly, with regard to the Zimbabwe motion, I thought about that issue when it arose, and, again, in the past few minutes, when I became aware that the Alliance Party was going to present concerns.
If that motion had had to go ahead as it was originally worded — because we were simply using the opportunity to express strong views about Zimbabwe — those views would still have been fully understood, and the House would have understood that the motion had been framed in light of the knowledge that existed at the time.
If the change to the Standing Orders goes through as proposed, we may at some time in the future detect difficulties that require further change. At this point, and with the Assembly having fully thought, and having been consulted, about the matter, we should not at this stage alter what is proposed. The change should be made and put to the test; and, if something needs changing in the future, let us change it. However, that may not be necessary.

David Ford: I am grateful to the Member for his second speech. There are two substantive points. I understand that my colleague raised his concerns when there was discussion in the Committee, but was not present when the vote was taken to approve this motion. Secondly, the key issue that was highlighted — and this was the point that I was going to mention with regard to the Zimbabwe motion — was that it is fine to say that we may discover at some time in the future that there will be a problem; however, what we are actually saying is that last week there was a problem.
I do not see at this stage, as Standing Orders are proposed, that there would have been any way of dealing with that problem. If, for example, we were a body that had the Speaker’s discretion to deal with a matter of urgency, I have faith in the Speaker to consider matters of urgency. As I understand it, however, there is no such discretion in the Standing Order — it is rigid. Although it would have been possible to have had that debate around the motion as it was originally framed, to have sat in this Chamber, knowing that people from Zimbabwe were listening in the Gallery, to have heard Members make impassioned speeches in support of the motion, and then, in the end, to have had to withdraw the motion because it was not relevant, would not have given this place a good name as a proper parliamentary debating Chamber. Therefore, an issue that needs attention was highlighted.
Lord Morrow may give an assurance that the Committee will not just wait to see whether something occurs in a year or two, but will look urgently at how we might deal with what in other places would be called an emergency amendment or an urgency amendment.
Something potentially as early as Thursday for any Monday, given that the Order Paper is not always finalised two weeks in advance, but only one week in advance, raises issues that have not been thoroughly addressed. I appreciate that there is a problem and that the Committee has been trying to resolve it. However, I remain to be convinced that this is the way to do so.

Lord Morrow: I thank all those who took part in this discussion. The Committee did spend considerable time in examining this amendment, and it researched what happens in other legislatures. The Committee’s approach was that, compared to other legislatures, the time provided in the Assembly’s Standing Orders was deemed to be unreasonable.
Most other places allow two or three days. The Committee spent a significant amount of time looking at the impact of changing to one, two or three days, and that information was brought back by the Committee members to their parties. After further discussion, the Committee reached a consensus that two working days was workable, particularly as the Business Committee had moved to scheduling business on a fortnightly basis.
I have listened carefully to what Mr Ford said with regard to this matter, and there is merit in some of it. I do not want to misquote anyone, and I stand to be corrected if Members feel differently, but I do not recall this issue being raised with the same force as it was raised by Mr Ford today.
I remind the Member that, recently, the House adopted an additional Standing Order to deal with matters of the day, which are deemed, at your discretion, Mr Speaker, to deal with urgent issues that may arise from time to time. Therefore, we have made provision for such matters. I hope that that will go some way to reassure the Member.
The Member raised an issue about the motion on free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. I do not wish to be derogatory, but I suspect that not many people in Zimbabwe took notice of what Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly said about the matter. I would have thought, however, that there was still provision for a Member to come to the House and make a declaration that, owing to a change in circumstances, he or she felt that a particular motion could not proceed but that it would be presented again to the Business Committee. As a member of the Business Committee, I suspect that its members would be sympathetic to that. In fact, it would not be difficult to reschedule the motion, and it would lose none of its impact, given the continuing situation. Therefore, I take the Member’s point, and I hope that he takes the point that we try to make.

David Ford: I appreciate that the Member is trying to make gestures in our direction by saying that if a motion were no longer relevant, we could handle it on another day; however, that could be at least two weeks hence. However, that would not have been a satisfactory way of dealing with it, given the crisis that faces Zimbabwe at the moment.

Lord Morrow: With all due respect, I suspect that the crisis in Zimbabwe is no worse today than it was when the motion was debated. Although the Member felt strongly about the issue — perhaps because it was election time — nothing seems to have changed in Zimbabwe. Regrettably, nothing has changed because of anything that the Assembly has done. Although the motion was passed unanimously, unfortunately, it did not change things for the people in that unfortunate, sad country. Therefore, in that particular instance, there would have been plenty of time for it to be re-addressed because of the change in circumstances as perceived by the Members. I beg to move that the House adopt the procedures.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(a) In Standing Order 15 leave out paragraph (1) and insert -
“(1) Except as provided for in paragraphs (1A) and (1B), any amendment to a motion shall be given in writing to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. two clear Working Days before the day on which the motion is to be taken.
(1A) Any amendment to a motion to be debated on a day on which the Business Committee has arranged an additional sitting of the Assembly under Standing Order 10(6) shall, where the time between such decision of the Business Committee and the day of the additional sitting is less than two clear Working Days, be given to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. on the day of the additional sitting.
(1B) Any amendment to a motion to be debated on a day on which the Assembly is summoned to meet earlier than that to which it stood adjourned shall, where the time between the Speaker’s summons and the meeting to which the Speaker’s summons relates is less than two clear Working Days, be given to the Speaker not later than 9.30 a.m. on the day on which the Assembly is summoned to meet.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]

Mr Speaker: We will now move to the second group of amendments, which consist of motions (b) to (v), as stated on the Order Paper.

Lord Morrow: I beg to move
(b) In Standing Order 45(b)(i) after “46” insert -
“and 47”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedure (Lord Morrow).]
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
(c) In Standing Order 46(3) line 2 leave out “and a number of Members other than himself/herself to” and insert -
“appointed in accordance with this Standing Order. The other Members of a Statutory Committee shall”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(d) In Standing Order 46(4) leave out from line 12 to end of line 15 and insert -
“C is the number of Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees established under this Standing Order who are members of the party.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(e) In Standing Order 46(5) line 5 leave out all after “Deputy Chairperson” and insert -
“of a Statutory Committee and to specify on which Committee that Member is nominated to serve. In making nominations, nominating officers shall prefer Committees in which they do not have a party interest over those in which they do have a party interest.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(f) In Standing Order 46(7) line 1 leave out “paragraph 8” and insert -
“paragraphs (7A), (8) and (9)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(g) In Standing Order 46(7) leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert -
“(b) if the person nominated does not take up the specified office within 15 minutes of the request being made (whether that person was present when nominated or not),
the power shall be exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (4) gives the next highest figure.
(7A) Where the nominating officer, the person nominated, or another Member of the Assembly asks the Assembly to extend the 15 minute time period mentioned in paragraph (7) and gives a reason or reasons for so asking, the Assembly may grant the extension.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(h) In Standing Order 46(8) leave out “Paragraph (7)” and insert -
“Paragraphs (7) and (7A)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(i) In Standing Order 46(9) line 1 leave out all after “as” and insert -
“necessary to ensure that the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have been filled.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(j) In Standing Order 46 after paragraph (9) insert -
“( ) Once a Member has accepted a nomination as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson the Speaker shall announce and confirm the appointment.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(k) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (11). — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(l) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (12) and insert -
“(12) A Member shall not be eligible for nomination as a Chairperson of a Statutory Committee if at the date of such nomination the Member is a Chairperson of another Statutory Committee or a Standing Committee.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(m) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (14) and insert -
“(14) If an office of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Statutory Committee becomes vacant by reason of any circumstances described in paragraph (13), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated shall nominate a member of the party who is a Member of the Assembly to replace the previous incumbent.
(15) If the nominating officer fails to make such a nomination within a period of ten days of the vacancy occurring or the nominated person does not take up office within this period, the power of nomination shall become exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (4) gives the next highest figure. Any such nominations must comply with paragraphs (5), (6), (11) and (12). Nominations shall be announced and confirmed by the Speaker at the next following meeting of the Assembly.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(n) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraphs (1) and (2). — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(o) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (3) and insert -
“( ) Statutory Committees shall be constituted to reflect, as far as possible, the party composition of the Assembly except in so far as individual parties or individual Members may waive their rights.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(p) In Standing Order 47(4) before paragraph (a) insert -
“( ) that each Statutory Committee will consist of 11 Members including the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson” . — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(q) In Standing Order 47(4)(b) line 4, leave out “is” and insert -
“constitutes”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(r) In Standing Order 47(4)(c) line 4, leave out “are allocated to each political party” and insert -
“is allocated to each political party as far as possible”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(s) In Standing Order 47(6) line 2, leave out “representation of the different political parties as soon as may be” and insert -
“allocation made under paragraph (4) as soon as practicable”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(t) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (7) and insert -
“(7) The quorum of a statutory committee shall be five except when no decision is taken or question put to the committee, when the quorum shall be four. A quorum shall be deemed to be present where members are linked by a video-conferencing facility.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(u) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (8) and insert -
“(8) A Statutory Committee shall continue for the duration of the Assembly unless the Assembly determines otherwise.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(v) In Standing Order 48 leave out paragraphs (3) to (7) and insert –
“(3) Ad Hoc Committees may be established from time to time to deal with any specific time-bounded terms of reference that the Assembly may set.
48A ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
(1) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, each Standing Committee shall have one Chairperson and one Deputy Chairperson appointed in accordance with this Standing Order as part of a process that is separate and distinct from the process of nominating the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Statutory Committee.
(2) By reference to the consolidated list of political parties and their members, the Speaker shall calculate each party’s figure for the purpose of this Standing Order by applying the formula -
S 1 + C
where
S is the number of seats which were held by members of that party on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election.
C is the number of Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Standing Committees established under this Standing Order who are members of the party.
Where two or more parties have an identical figure they shall be ranked by applying the formula –
V 1 + C
where
V is the total number of first preference votes cast for the party at the most recent general election of Members of the Assembly and C has the same meaning as above.
(3) The Speaker shall then invite the nominating officer of the party with the highest figure to nominate a member of that party who is a Member of the Assembly to be Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee and to specify on which Committee that Member is nominated to serve.
(4) Subject to paragraphs (5), (6) and (7), where the Speaker asks the nominating officer to make a nomination under paragraph (3) –
(a) if he/she fails to do so within 15 minutes of the request being made (whether the nominating officer was present when the request was made or not), or
(b) if the person nominated does not take up the specified office within 15 minutes, of the request being made, (whether that person was present when nominated or not).
the power shall be exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (2) gives the next highest figure.
(5) Where the nominating officer, the person nominated, or another Member of the Assembly asks the Assembly to extend the 15 minute time period mentioned in paragraph (4), and gives a reason or reasons for so asking, the Assembly may grant an extension.
(6) Paragraph (4) and (5) shall not operate whilst the Assembly is adjourned.
(7) Paragraphs (3) to (5) shall be applied as many times as may be necessary to ensure that the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have been filled.
(8) Once a Member has accepted a nomination as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson the Speaker shall announce and confirm the appointment.
(9) A Minister or junior Minister may not be the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee.
(10) A Member shall not be eligible for nomination as a Chairperson of a Standing Committee if at the date of such nomination the Member is a Chairperson of another Standing Committee or a Statutory Committee.
(11) The Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee shall cease to hold office on –
(a) resigning that office by notice in writing to the Speaker;
(b) ceasing to be a Member of the Assembly; or
(c) being dismissed by the nominating officer of the party which nominated him/her and the Speaker is notified of his/her dismissal.
(12) If an office of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee becomes vacant by reason of any circumstances described in paragraph (11), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated shall nominate a member of the party who is a Member of the Assembly to replace the previous incumbent.
(13) If the nominating officer fails to make such a nomination within a period of ten days of the vacancy occurring or the nominated person does not take up office within this period the power of nomination shall become exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (2) gives the next highest figure. Any such nominations must comply with paragraphs (9) and (10). Nominations shall be announced and confirmed by the Speaker at the next meeting of the Assembly.
48B MEMBERSHIP OF STANDING COMMITTEES
(1) Standing Committees shall be constituted to reflect, as far as possible, the party composition of the Assembly except in so far as individual parties or individual Members may waive their rights.
(2) Seats on Standing Committees will be allo­cated on a proportional basis in accordance with the following principles –
(a) that unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, each Standing Committee shall consist of 11 Members including the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson;
(b) that not all the seats on a Standing Committee are allocated to the same political party;
(c) that the majority of the seats on each Standing Committee is allocated to a particular political party if the number of persons belonging to that party constitutes a majority of the Assembly membership;
(d) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) above, that the number of seats on the Standing Committees of the Assembly which is allocated to each political party as far as possible bears the same proportion to the total of all the seats on the Standing Committees as is borne by the number of Members of that party to the membership of the Assembly; and
(e) subject to paragraphs (b) and (d) above, that the number of seats on each Standing Committee which is allocated to each political party as far as possible bears the same proportion to the number of seats on that Standing Committee as is borne by the number of Members of that party to the membership of the Assembly.
(3) The allocation of seats to parties or individual Members on the Standing Committees other than the Business Committee shall be undertaken by the Business Committee and shall be approved by resolution of the Assembly.
(4) The Business Committee shall review the allocation made under paragraph (2) as soon as practicable following any numerical changes to party membership in the Assembly.
(5) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, the quorum of every Standing Committee shall be five, except when no decision is taken or question put to the Committee, when the quorum shall be four. A quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video-conferencing facility.
(6) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, all questions at a Standing Committee shall be decided by a simple majority. Voting shall be by show of hands unless otherwise requested by a Member of the Committee.’
48C ESTABLISHMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEES
(1) Ad Hoc Committees shall be established from time to time to deal with any specific time-bounded terms of reference that the Assembly may set. The Assembly shall decide the membership of any such Committee and may direct its method of operation.
(2) Each Ad Hoc Committee may exercise the power in section 44(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
There are many amendments to be made to the Standing Orders for Statutory and non-Statutory Committees, which are listed as motions (b) to (v) inclusive on the Order Paper. Some of the amendments are substantial but most are grammatical. The amendments simply improve the readability and clarity of the Standing Orders for MLAs, staff and the general public.
Dealing with the amendments took up considerable Committee time and involved detailed consideration by the Members who, in the end, were unanimous in their support of the amendments. I wish to take the opportunity to thank them for their input and their work.
I will deal with each motion sequentially and explain the thinking of the Committee on Procedures.
Motion (b) is a tidying up exercise, and the Standing Order deals with proportionality and party strengths. Therefore, it should include a reference to Standing Order 47 as well as Standing Order 46.
Motion (c) is an amendment designed to improve the readability of the Standing Order. It makes no change to the substance, principles or meaning of the Standing Order.
Motion (d) is an amendment designed to improve the readability of the Standing Order and does not change its substance, principles or meaning. Members should note that the terms “Chairs” and “Deputy Chairs” have been changed to “Chairpersons” and “Deputy Chairpersons”. That is a purely grammatical amendment, which will be made to all Standing Orders during the summer reprint.
The amendment outlined in motion (e) is designed to improve readability, and, again, does not change the substance, principles or meaning of the Standing Order.
I will discuss motions (f) and (g) together. Motion (g) deals with the principle that the power is exercisable by the nominating officer. That has been reformatted to show that it applies to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). In its current form, it could be interpreted as applying to sub-paragraph (b) only — that is not the case. The principle of the 15-minute time period has been moved to a new paragraph — (7A) — for ease of understanding and improved clarity. Motion (f) allows for a cross-reference between paragraph (7A) and paragraph (9), as it applies to paragraph (7), which was not previously explicit.
Motion (h) is a consequential change to take account of the new paragraph (7A). Motion (i) is designed to improve the readability of the Standing Order and does not change its substance, principles or meaning.
Motions (j) and (k) deal with paragraphs (10) and (11). Members should note that those paragraphs are being swapped because, in application, paragraph (11) should precede paragraph (10). Furthermore, Members should be aware that paragraph (11) will be reworded in order to improve the readability of the Standing Order without changing its substance, principles or meaning.
Motion (l) refers to Standing Order 46(12) and is a substantive amendment. Under current Standing Orders, an MLA can be a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of both a Statutory and a Standing Committee. Although the Committee on Procedures found no problem with an MLA being a Deputy Chairperson of both a Statutory and a Standing Committee, members feel that the role of Chairperson is too time-consuming and intense. Therefore, the suggested amendment excludes MLAs from chairing two Committees.
Although the principle of paragraph (14) remains the same, motion (m) is, nevertheless, a substantive amendment. Paragraph (14) currently covers two principles — the nomination of an MLA to replace a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson, and the timescale within which that nomination should occur. For clarity, those two aspects have been separated, and the second principle now has its own paragraph — paragraph (15). A number of minor grammatical changes have been made to the new paragraph (15) to improve readability. The current version of paragraph (14) is deficient, because it covers only two of the three circumstances listed in Standing Order 46(13). Replacement of a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson under paragraph (13)(c) is not covered in the current version of paragraph (14), but was applied in practice. In order to correct that deficiency, the Committee consulted the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to find technically correct wording, which differs from the current wording.
I now move to the amendments to Standing Order 47, which are listed as motions (n) to (u) on the Order Paper. Members should note that motions (n) and (p) should be read together. Those motions allow the information in paragraphs (1) and (2) to be amalgamated and moved to Standing Order 47(4), which will necessitate a renumbering exercise that will be conducted during the summer reprint.
Motion (o) is an amendment designed to improve the readability and clarity of the Standing Order and does not change its principles, substance or meaning. Motions (q), (r) and (s) also make minor grammatical amendments that are designed to improve clarity and understanding, while not affecting the principles or substance of the Standing Order.
Motion (t) is a substantial amendment. It arises out of the Assembly’s approval of the recommendations in the ‘Report on Committee Systems and Structures’. The motion allows a Committee to operate with a quorum of four when no decision is taken or question put.
Motion (u) is designed to improve the readability and clarity of Standing Order 47 and makes no change to the substance or principles of the Standing Order.
Motion (v) is a substantial amendment, and will make express provision for Standing Committees and Ad Hoc Committees. The current Standing Orders for non-Statutory Committees work by referring to the Standing Orders for Statutory Committees. That was less than satisfactory as there are important differences between the two types of Committee. For example, it is important that the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee is not of the same party as the Minister of the relevant Department. However, that is not an issue in the case of a non-Statutory Committee. As permanent Committees of the Assembly, non-Statutory Committees deserved their own unique and specific Standing Orders. That is what is being provided for in this motion.
Standing Order 44 (1) gives Ad Hoc Committees powers, but their ability to have a reduced quorum is left with the Assembly. Where suitable, motion (v) follows the wording of Standing Orders 46 and 47 as revised by the previous motions to amend. There are some minor differences in wording in order to allow for differences in voting in the Business Committee and the quorum of the Audit Committee. Otherwise, the substantial and grammatical amendments in motions (b) to (u) have been followed.
I thank Members for their patience, and I recommend this group of motions to the Assembly.

Declan O'Loan: I wish only to speak in support of motion (t), which alters the quorum of a Statutory Committee. The present quorum is five in all circumstances. The motion to amend will direct the Committee to have a quorum of five when decisions are taken or when questions are put to the Committee, but four when the Committee is engaged in non-decision-making activity. That is a practical adjustment that all Members can support.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his support. I do not wish to say anything else, as no other Member has raised any other issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(b) In Standing Order 45(b)(i) after “46” insert –
“and 47” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures(Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(c) In Standing Order 46(3) line 2 leave out “and a number of Members other than himself/herself to” and insert -
“appointed in accordance with this Standing Order. The other Members of a Statutory Committee shall”
— [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures(Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(d) In Standing Order 46(4) leave out from line 12 to end of line 15 and insert -
“C is the number of Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees established under this Standing Order who are members of the party.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(e) In Standing Order 46(5) line 5 leave out all after “Deputy Chairperson” and insert -
“of a Statutory Committee and to specify on which Committee that Member is nominated to serve. In making nominations, nominating officers shall prefer Committees in which they do not have a party interest over those in which they do have a party interest.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures(Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(f) In Standing Order 46(7) line 1 leave out “paragraph 8” and insert -
“paragraphs (7A), (8) and (9)” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures(Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(g) In Standing Order 46(7) leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert -
“(b) if the person nominated does not take up the specified office within 15 minutes of the request being made (whether that person was present when nominated or not),
the power shall be exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (4) gives the next highest figure.”
(7A) Where the nominating officer, the person nominated, or another Member of the Assembly asks the Assembly to extend the 15 minute time period mentioned in paragraph (7) and gives a reason or reasons for so asking, the Assembly may grant the extension.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(h) In Standing Order 46(8) leave out “Paragraph (7)” and insert -
“Paragraphs (7) and (7A)” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(i) In Standing Order 46(9) line 1 leave out all after “as” and insert -
“necessary to ensure that the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have been filled.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(j) In Standing Order 46 after paragraph (9) insert -
“( ) Once a Member has accepted a nomination as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson the Speaker shall announce and confirm the appointment.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(k) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (11). — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(l) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (12) and insert -
“(12) A Member shall not be eligible for nomination as a Chairperson of a Statutory Committee if at the date of such nomination the Member is a Chairperson of another Statutory Committee or a Standing Committee.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(m) In Standing Order 46 leave out paragraph (14) and insert -
“(14) If an office of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Statutory Committee becomes vacant by reason of any circumstances described in paragraph (13), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated shall nominate a member of the party who is a Member of the Assembly to replace the previous incumbent.
(15) If the nominating officer fails to make such a nomination within a period of ten days of the vacancy occurring or the nominated person does not take up office within this period, the power of nomination shall become exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (4) gives the next highest figure. Any such nominations must comply with paragraphs (5), (6), (11) and (12). Nominations shall be announced and confirmed by the Speaker at the next following meeting of the Assembly.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(n) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraphs (1) and (2). — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(o) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (3) and insert –
“( ) Statutory Committees shall be constituted to reflect, as far as possible, the party composition of the Assembly except in so far as individual parties or individual Members may waive their rights.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(p) In Standing Order 47(4) before paragraph (a) insert -
“( ) that each Statutory Committee will consist of 11 Members including the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson;”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(q) In Standing Order 47(4)(b) line 4, leave out “is” and insert -
“constitutes”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(r) In Standing Order 47(4)(c) line 4, leave out “are allocated to each political party” and insert -
“is allocated to each political party as far as possible”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(s) In Standing Order 47(6) line 2, leave out “representation of the different political parties as soon as may be” and insert -
“allocation made under paragraph (4) as soon as practicable”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(t) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (7) and insert -
“(7) The quorum of a statutory committee shall be five except when no decision is taken or question put to the committee, when the quorum shall be four. A quorum shall be deemed to be present where members are linked by a video-conferencing facility.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(u) In Standing Order 47 leave out paragraph (8) and insert -
“(8) A Statutory Committee shall continue for the duration of the Assembly unless the Assembly determines otherwise.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(v) In Standing Order 48 leave out paragraphs (3) to (7) and insert –
“(3) Ad Hoc Committees may be established from time to time to deal with any specific time-bounded terms of reference that the Assembly may set.
48A ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
(1) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, each Standing Committee shall have one Chairperson and one Deputy Chairperson appointed in accordance with this Standing Order as part of a process that is separate and distinct from the process of nominating the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Statutory Committee.
(2) By reference to the consolidated list of political parties and their members, the Speaker shall calculate each party’s figure for the purpose of this Standing Order by applying the formula -
S 1 + C
where
S is the number of seats which were held by members of that party on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election.
C is the number of Chairpersons and Deputy Chair­persons of Standing Committees established under this Standing Order who are members of the party.
Where two or more parties have an identical figure they shall be ranked by applying the formula –
V 1 + C
where
V is the total number of first preference votes cast for the party at the most recent general election of Members of the Assembly and C has the same meaning as above.
(3) The Speaker shall then invite the nominating officer of the party with the highest figure to nominate a member of that party who is a Member of the Assembly to be Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee and to specify on which Committee that Member is nominated to serve.
(4) Subject to paragraphs (5), (6) and (7), where the Speaker asks the nominating officer to make a nomination under paragraph (3) –
(a) if he/she fails to do so within 15 minutes of the request being made (whether the nominating officer was present when the request was made or not), or
(b) if the person nominated does not take up the specified office within 15 minutes, of the request being made, (whether that person was present when nominated or not).
the power shall be exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (2) gives the next highest figure.
(5) Where the nominating officer, the person nominated, or another Member of the Assembly asks the Assembly to extend the 15 minute time period mentioned in paragraph (4), and gives a reason or reasons for so asking, the Assembly may grant an extension.
(6) Paragraph (4) and (5) shall not operate whilst the Assembly is adjourned.
(7) Paragraphs (3) to (5) shall be applied as many times as may be necessary to ensure that the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have been filled.
(8) Once a Member has accepted a nomination as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson the Speaker shall announce and confirm the appointment.
(9) A Minister or junior Minister may not be the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee.
(10) A Member shall not be eligible for nomination as a Chairperson of a Standing Committee if at the date of such nomination the Member is a Chairperson of another Standing Committee or a Statutory Committee.
(11) The Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee shall cease to hold office on –
(a) resigning that office by notice in writing to the Speaker;
(b) ceasing to be a Member of the Assembly; or
(c) being dismissed by the nominating officer of the party which nominated him/her and the Speaker is notified of his/her dismissal.
(12) If an office of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Standing Committee becomes vacant by reason of any circumstances described in paragraph (11), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated shall nominate a member of the party who is a Member of the Assembly to replace the previous incumbent.
(13) If the nominating officer fails to make such a nomination within a period of ten days of the vacancy occurring or the nominated person does not take up office within this period the power of nomination shall become exercisable by the nominating officer of the party for which the formula in paragraph (2) gives the next highest figure. Any such nominations must comply with paragraphs (9) and (10). Nominations shall be announced and confirmed by the Speaker at the next meeting of the Assembly.
48B MEMBERSHIP OF STANDING COMMITTEES
(1) Standing Committees shall be constituted to reflect, as far as possible, the party composition of the Assembly except in so far as individual parties or individual Members may waive their rights.
(2) Seats on Standing Committees will be allo­cated on a proportional basis in accordance with the following principles –
(a) that unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, each Standing Committee shall consist of 11 Members including the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson;
(b) that not all the seats on a Standing Committee are allocated to the same political party;
(c) that the majority of the seats on each Standing Committee is allocated to a particular political party if the number of persons belonging to that party constitutes a majority of the Assembly membership;
(d) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) above, that the number of seats on the Standing Committees of the Assembly which is allocated to each political party as far as possible bears the same proportion to the total of all the seats on the Standing Committees as is borne by the number of Members of that party to the membership of the Assembly; and
(e) subject to paragraphs (b) and (d) above, that the number of seats on each Standing Committee which is allocated to each political party as far as possible bears the same proportion to the number of seats on that Standing Committee as is borne by the number of Members of that party to the membership of the Assembly.
(3) The allocation of seats to parties or individual Members on the Standing Committees other than the Business Committee shall be undertaken by the Business Committee and shall be approved by resolution of the Assembly.
(4) The Business Committee shall review the allocation made under paragraph (2) as soon as practicable following any numerical changes to party membership in the Assembly.
(5) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, the quorum of every Standing Committee shall be five, except when no decision is taken or question put to the Committee, when the quorum shall be four. A quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video-conferencing facility.
(6) Unless otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, all questions at a Standing Committee shall be decided by a simple majority. Voting shall be by show of hands unless otherwise requested by a Member of the Committee.’
48C ESTABLISHMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEES
(1) Ad Hoc Committees shall be established from time to time to deal with any specific time-bounded terms of reference that the Assembly may set. The Assembly shall decide the membership of any such Committee and may direct its method of operation.
(2) Each Ad Hoc Committee may exercise the power in section 44(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]

Lord Morrow: I beg to move
(w) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (4) and insert -
“(4) The Speaker shall nominate two Members of the Committee, either of whom, in the Speaker’s absence shall act as Chairperson of the Committee.”
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
(x) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (6) and insert –
“(6) The Business Committee shall comprise the Chairperson and a maximum of twelve other Members of the Assembly. Each of these other Members shall be entitled to appoint a substitute Member to attend the Committee in his or her place.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
(y) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (7) and insert -
“(7) Each party delegation present at the Committee, whether comprised of members or their substitutes, shall be entitled to cast a number of votes equivalent to the number of Members who adhere to the Whip of that party. For the purposes of this Standing Order, the Speaker shall not be considered to adhere to any Whip; but a Member acting as Chairperson in accordance with paragraph (4) shall be considered to adhere to a Whip.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow)].
There are three motions — (w), (x) and (y) — that deal with Standing Order 50. I will explain the three motions before they are voted on separately. All three motions have been agreed by the Business Committee and had unanimous support among members of the Committee on Procedures.
Motion (w) is a simple grammatical amendment and there is no change to the substance or meaning of the paragraph. Motion (x) is a substantial change in that it provides clarity on the separation of the Chairperson from the other members of the Committee; it also provides clarity that a substitute Business Committee member must be a Member of the Assembly. That is presumed in the current version but not made explicit. Motion (y) provides clarity on the unique voting arrangements of the Business Committee in that the Speaker does not vote but that an acting Chairperson is considered as adhering to a Whip and may cast the votes of his or her party delegation.

Declan O'Loan: I put on record that motions (w) to (y), which relate to Standing Order 50 and matters concerning the Business Committee, have been considered by my party’s Whip and the party Assembly group and that they assent to them.

Lord Morrow: I have nothing further to say on the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(w) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (4) and insert -
“(4) The Speaker shall nominate two Members of the Committee, either of whom, in the Speaker’s absence shall act as Chairperson of the Committee.’
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(x) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (6) and insert –
“(6) The Business Committee shall comprise the Chairperson and a maximum of twelve other Members of the Assembly. Each of these other Members shall be entitled to appoint a substitute Member to attend the Committee in his or her place.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(y) In Standing Order 50 leave out paragraph (7) and insert -
“(7) Each party delegation present at the Committee, whether comprised of members or their substitutes, shall be entitled to cast a number of votes equivalent to the number of Members who adhere to the Whip of that party. For the purposes of this Standing Order, the Speaker shall not be considered to adhere to any Whip; but a Member acting as Chairperson in accordance with paragraph (4) shall be considered to adhere to a Whip.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]

Lord Morrow: I beg to move
(z) In Standing Order 76, at end insert -
“‘Nominating officer’, in relation to a party, means:
(a) the person registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as the party’s nominating officer; or
(b) a member of the Assembly nominated by him.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Lord Morrow).]
As there are not many letters left in the alphabet, I am sure that Members will be pleased to know that we are coming to the end.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Lord Morrow: This is another amendment that provides clarity for users of Standing Orders and members of the public who pick them up in an effort to understand the rules of the Assembly. The term “nominating officer” is used in Standing Orders for Committees and ministerial appointments, but there is currently no definition of what or who the nominating officer is. The definition in the amendment is lifted straight from the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
(z) In Standing Order 76, at end insert:
“‘Nominating officer’, in relation to a party, means:
(a) the person registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as the party’s nominating officer; or
(b) a member of the Assembly nominated by him.”
Adjourned at 4.39 pm.